IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11510 of 2001 Between: Y.V.S.R.Murthy, S/o. Late Venkatesam, R/o. 49-55-67, Vidyut Nagar, Visakhapatnam and presently residing at Braves Building, D.No.45-55-3/2, Abid Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Visakhapatnam. 2 Bharat Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Represented by its Secretary Kakani Nagar, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled along with the writ petition the High Court may be pleased to examine the records relating to Rc.No.4148/89-C-II dated 25.03.1992 of the ﬁrst respondent and consequential order of the third respondent dated 10.07.2000 in O.A.No.71 of 1998, declare that the said orders are illgal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same by way of Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAMABRAHMAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.11510 OF 2001 O R D E R This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the Appellate Order dated 10.07.2000 in O.A.No.71 of 1998 on the ﬁle of the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada, the third respondent herein, and the order of the Primary Authority - the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Visakhapatnam, the first respondent herein, in Rc.No.4184/1989-C-II, dated 25.03.1992. The petitioner, being the former Secretary of Bharat Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Visakhapatnam, second respondent herein, was issued a show-cause notice under Section 60(1) of the A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) under proceedings bearing Rc.No.4184/1989-C, dated 12.07.1991 by the ﬁrst respondent herein. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the ﬁrst respondent passed the surcharge order dated 25.03.1992 in Rc.No.4184/89-C-II, holding that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs.32,949-45 Ps. to the second respondent-society. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 76 of the Act before the third respondent-Tribunal in O.A.No.71 of 1998. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 10.07.2000, which led to the filing of the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the orders passed by the Primary and Appellate Authorities were unsustainable on facts and in law. It is his contention that the authorities violated the principles of natural justice in as much as proper opportunity was not aﬀorded to the petitioner and accordingly, the orders passed by the authorities deserve to be set aside. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not sit in appeal over the ﬁndings on facts arrived at by the Primary and Appellate Authorities. The contentions raised by the petitioner on the factual aspects of the matter are therefore liable to be eschewed from the adjudication in the present writ petition. In so far as the issue of violation of the principles of natural justice is concerned, the complaint advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is deprived of proper opportunity before the Primary Authority. However, the Appellate order passed by the third respondent-Tribunal categorically refers to the various opportunities aﬀorded to the petitioner at his own request to come forward and meet the contentions levelled against him. The orders under challenge would also demonstrate that the Tribunal and the Primary Authority comprehensively dealt with all the factual issues that arose for consideration and only after ﬁnding that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duties as the Secretary of the Society, the responsibility for the losses suﬀered by the said Society were pinned upon the petitioner. The orders impugned in the writ petition therefore do not suffer from any defect or lacunae. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim suspension granted by this Court earlier shall stand dissolved. ----------------------------- P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 22nd OCTOBER, 2008 PGS (34) THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.11510 of 2001 22ND OCTOBER, 2008