IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10617 of 2002 Between: 1 Dhanukond Suryanarayana, S/o. Satyanarayana, R/o. Katthulavakiti Village, Veeragattam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 2 Dontu Kesava Rao, S/o. Chinnam Naidu, R/o. Katthulavakiti Village, Veeragattam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 3 Kothavalasa Satyam Naidu, S/o. Appalaswamy Naidu, R/o. Katthulavakiti Village, Veeragattam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 4 Kothavalasa Parusuram Naidu, S/o. Late Ravi Naidu, R/o. Katthulavakiti Village, Veeragattam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 5 Thandrotu Appalanaidu, S/o. Late Appala naidu, Mohannarajapuram Village, Veeraghattam Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Registrar of Cooperative Society, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 2 The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Rep. by its President, Kattulavakiti, Kattulavkiti, Veeraghattam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 3 The Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. 4 Routu Pani Naidu, S/o. Narasimhulu Naidu, Ex-President of Kattulavakiti PACS, Veeragattam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 5 Matcha Sanyasi Naidu, S/o. Sanyasi Naidu, Paid Secretary, Tamatapalli PACS, Veeragattam Mandal, Srikakulam 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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling the records of Rirst Respondent and consequently set aside the impugned order of the first respondent vide R.C.No.2895 of 1986-B dt. 30-3.-990 which was confirmed in O.A.No. 26 of 2002 on the file of the A.P.Coop. Tribunal Vijayawada dt. 20-2-2002 as bad, illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires and also against the principles of natural justice and also against the A.P.Coop. Societies Act. Counsel for the Petitioners:M/SC.KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 10617 of 2002 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari, calling for records on the file of 1st respondent and consequently to set aside the impugned order passed by him vide Rc.No.2895 of 1986-B dated 30.3.1990, which was confirmed in O.A. No. 26 of 2002 on the file of A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada dated 20.2.2002, as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. It appears, petitioners, five in number, were the Directors of 2nd respondent – Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kattulavakiti village, Veeragattam Mandal, Srikakulam District. While that being so, an enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act was conducted and it was found that respondents 4 and 5, who were the President and the Secretary of the Society respectively, were charged, vide Surcharge proceedings Rc.No.2895/86-B dated 30.3.1990, with allegations of misappropriation of amount. Even the petitioners were also made responsible for the said misappropriation on the ground that respondents 4 and 5 stated that petitioners were also present, along with respondents 4 and 5, when those benami transactions took place resulting in misappropriation of amount to a tune of Rs.1,23,000/-. According to the petitioners, they are neither directly nor in any way concerned with misappropriation of funds and the alleged action of 1st respondent in launching surcharge proceedings against the petitioners under Section 60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act is nothing but harassing them and to falsify their credibility in the society. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have carried the matter in appeal but the appellate Tribunal also confirmed the orders passed by the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when an explanation is called for, the petitioners have categorically denied that they were party to such illegal transactions purported to have been confessed by respondents 4 and 5. In this regard, neither the petitioners were permitted to cross-examine respondents 4 and 5 in the enquiry nor respondents 4 and 5 have adduced any corroborative evidence, either oral or documentary, to show that the petitioners were also parties to the illegal transactions conducted by them. Therefore, the orders passed by 1st respondent, as confirmed by the appellate Tribunal, are without basis and liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents supported the orders impugned in the writ petition and submitted that there is no reason to interfere with such orders. On verification of the entire record, it came to light that the petitioners were neither permitted or directed to cross-examine respondents 4 and 5 in the enquiry nor there is any material to show that the petitioners were parties to the illegal transactions conducted by respondents 4 and 5, except the self-serving statement of respondents 4 and 5. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that mere oral statement of respondents 4 and 5, which is neither corroborated nor supported by any documentary evidence, should not have been taken as gospel truth for making the petitioners also liable for the illegal transactions committed by respondents 4 and 5. Under those circumstances, the orders dated 30.3.1990 passed by 1st respondent, as confirmed in O.A. 26 of 2002 dated 20.2.2002, are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside, insofar as petitioners are concerned. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 14-7-2009. MVB.