IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12196 of 2007 Between: B.Eranna, S/o.Savappa, Kotekal Large Size, Cooperative Society (LSCS), R/o.Pattikonda,Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 the Commissioner for Cooperation &Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The District Co-Operative Officer/Dy.Registrar- of Cooperative Societies, Adoni, Kurnool District. 3 The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Adoni,Kurnool District. 4 The Station House Officer, P.S. Emmiganur (Rural), Kurnool District. 5 the President Kotekal LSCS/Primary Agricultural- Cooperative Society (PACS), Kotekal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropirate writ, o r d e r ordirectionmoreparticaurllyone in thenatureof writ of mandamus; delclaring the proceedings of the 1st respodnent vide Rc.no.13027/02-K3, dt. 8.10.2002 in so far as thepetitioner is concerned ﬁgured in S.no.9 in the said proceedigns in sanctioning the prosectuion agaisnt thepetitioner as illegal, arbitrary,unjust a n d agaisnt the principles of natural justice, consequently quashing the same andpass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.EATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12196 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner challenges an order, dated 08.10.2002, issued by the Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 1st respondent herein, according sanction for prosecuting him. The petitioner was an employee of Large Size Co-operative Societ y, Kotekal, Kurnool District and surcharge proceedings were initiated against him, on the basis of a statutory enquiry/inspection. The petitioner raised several grounds in his challenge to the impugned order. While ordering Notice Before Admission on 14.06.2007, this Court granted interim stay, on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month, on or before 10th of every month, commencing from July 2007. It was also directed that in case, the petitioner commits default for two consecutive months, the stay shall stand vacated. It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that the condition imposed by this Court was not complied with by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The sanction accorded by the 1st respondent for prosecution of the petitioner is on the basis of an order of surcharge passed against him. It is not clear as to whether the petitioner had assailed the order of surcharge by ﬁling an appeal. Be that as it may, the petitioner did not comply with the condition imposed by this Court, while granting stay; and the default clause operated. This Court does not ﬁnd any basis to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 23.09.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12196 of 2007 Date: 23.09.2008 JSU