IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.24512 of 2007 Between: Matta Raji Reddy. … Petitioner And The Deputy Registrar, Officer on Special Duty, The Karimnagar District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Karimnagar and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao. Counsel for the respondents: GP for Co-operation for R.2. None for R.1 and R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- Notice, dated 25-10-2007, issued by respondent No.1 proposing to sell the immovable properties of the petitioner comprising agricultural lands is the subject matter of this Writ Petition. The petitioner was the President of respondent No.3-Society. During his tenure, proceedings under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.99,418-50 ps., with interest. During pendency of the surcharge proceedings, petitioner has paid Rs.20,000/- on 10-2-2000. After giving credit to the said amount, respondent No.2 has passed an order on 30-6-2000 directing recovery of Rs.79,418-50 ps., together with interest at 18% per annum from the petitioner, which was to the tune of Rs.15,758/- accrued on Rs.99,418-50 ps., from 24-3-1999 to 9-2-2000 and with further interest of 18% per annum from 10-2-2000. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said surcharge order in CTA No.37 of 2005 before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal at Warangal (for short “the Tribunal”). In pursuance of the said surcharge order, as confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal, the impugned sale notice was issued by respondent No.1 for recovery of Rs.99,418/- with further interest. Questioning this order of the Tribunal confirming the surcharge order and the notice of sale of immovable property, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, made a half hearted attempt to question the order of the Tribunal. Having carefully gone through the said order and considering the fact that the petitioner has admitted his liability before respondent No.2 in the surcharge proceedings and has in fact undertaken to discharge the same by paying Rs.20,000/- initially, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Tribunal suffers from illegality. The only other question which remains to be considered is whether the petitioner is still due and payable any amount towards the surcharge order. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order of the Tribunal in CTA No.37 of 2005, which recorded the written arguments of respondent No.2, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner has remitted the entire amount of Rs.99,418-50 ps., but did not remit the interest amount accrued thereon; and that he was liable to pay the interest at 18% per annum with effect from 24-3-1999. According to the learned counsel, the said written arguments of respondent No.1 filed before the Tribunal support the petitioner’s plea that he has discharged the entire amount. But, I am unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel because it is clear from the written argument, as extracted by the Tribunal, that though the petitioner has paid Rs.99,418-50 ps., towards principal liability, he failed to pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 24-3-1999. The petitioner failed to file proper statement of account before this Court though he is stated to have made representations before respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 8-11-2007 giving the details of various payments made on different dates and pleaded that no further amount is due and payable by him. In pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, the proposed auction has become abortive. This Court cannot adjudicate upon the disputed question as to whether the petitioner has cleared the entire amount due as per the surcharge order or not, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the sale could not be held in pursuance of the impugned notice, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, and the petitioner has submitted his detailed representations to respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is appropriate that respondent No.2 considers the petitioner’s representation. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh statement of account before respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from today. On expiry of four weeks, respondent No.2 shall consider the petitioner’s representation and take appropriate decision. If respondent No.2 is satisfied that the amount was paid by the petitioner as per surcharge order dated 30-6-2000, he shall drop all further proceedings. Conversely, if respondent No.2 finds that further amount is due and payable by the petitioner, he shall pass an order on the petitioner’s representation before proceeding further for recovery of the amount, if any, found due. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:24-2-2011 MNR