THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2778 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Paid Secretary of Gorinta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. The District Cooperative Officer, Kakinada, the first respondent herein, directed enquiry into the affairs of the Society under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 {“the Act” for brevity}. The Cooperative Sub-Registrar, Peddapuram, was authorized to conduct enquiry. A report, dated 11.03.1998, was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Taking the same into account, the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Peddapuram, the second respondent herein, initiated surcharge proceedings under Section 60 (1) of the Act against the petitioner. A notice, dated 09.12.1998, was issued, directing the petitioner to explain as to why a sum of Rs.64,620/- shall not be recovered from him. The petitioner challenges the very initiation of surcharge proceedings. It is not in dispute that they were initiated on the basis of a report submitted after conducting an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. He contends that there is absolutely no factual basis for initiation of the proceedings. He denies the allegations made against him. No jurisdictional error is pointed out. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that, findings were recorded in the enquiry report to the effect that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.64,620/- and the surcharge proceedings were initiated in relation thereto. Though the Writ Petition was admitted on 26.02.2002, no interim order was passed. By this time, the enquiry may have been completed, one way or the other. Objection is raised as to the very maintainability of the Writ Petition. The final order under Section 60 (1) of the Act is said to have passed on 06.02.2002. Heard Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for the respondents. The petitioner, no doubt, challenged the impugned notice on several grounds. By the time the Writ Petition was filed, he was suspended. The fact, however, remains that the surcharge order was passed on 06.02.2002. The remedy of appeal to the Cooperative Tribunal is provided for under Section 76 of the Act. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 20th December 2010 RRB