IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 20056 of 2001 BETWEEN: S.J. Ram Singh S/o. Sri L.S. Singh, R/o. Plot No.10, Venkatatam Nagar, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Co-operative Tribunal, Rep by its Secretary, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, City Circle, Exhibition Grounds, Hyderabad. 3 PAD(ORS) AOC Employees Co-operative Credit Society ltd, Sec'bad Rep by its Person-in-charge/Co-operative sub-Registrar, Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, City Circle, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI calling for the records from the 1st respondent i.e, cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad passed on 19.6.2001 in C.T.A.No.181/98 wherein the orders of the 2nd respondent passed in RC.No.5389/85-B, dt.17.8.1998 was conﬁrmed and declare the same as illegal arbitrary and against the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Writ of Certiorari quashing the surcharge order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, City Circle, Exhibition Grounds, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein, in Rc.No.5389/85-B dated 17.08.1998 and the appellate order, conﬁrming the same, dated 19.06.2001 in C.T.A.No.181 of 1998 passed by the Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the first respondent herein. 2. The petitioner worked as Honorary Secretary of the PAO (ORS) AOC Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Secunderabad, the third respondent herein. Pursuant to the inspection undertaken under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 into the aﬀairs of the third respondent society, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.57,003-13 ps. The surcharge proceedings are embodied in the order in Rc.No.5389/85-B dated 30.11.1992 passed by the second respondent herein. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner initiated proceedings before this Court in W.P.No.2396 of 1993, which resulted in the petitioner being permitted to approach the ﬁrst respondent upon payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Thereupon, the ﬁrst respondent having considered the matter in C.T.A.No.32 of 1996 rendered its judgment dated 25.02.1997 allowing the petitioner’s appeal setting aside the surcharge order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration to the second respondent. The second respondent having issued a notice to the petitioner under Rc.No.5389/85-B dated 25.05.1998 aﬀorded an opportunity of hearing to him and after due inspection of the records, books of accounts etc., passed order dated 17.08.1998 holding that the balance amount of Rs.26,003-13 ps. be recovered from the petitioner giving due credit to the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by him in pursuance of the earlier order of this Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal once again before the ﬁrst respondent. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 19.06.2001. The surcharge order of the primary authority dated 17.08.1998 and the appellate order dated 19.06.2001 are called in question before this Court in the present writ petition. The main ground raised in the writ petition is that the ﬁrst respondent failed to speciﬁcally indicate what were the records perused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the orders passed by the authorities clearly demonstrate lack of application of mind. He submitted that one Sri P. Krishna Kumar, Treasurer, who ﬁnds mention in the inspection report, was not examined and that the same caused grave prejudice to the interests of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is not able to demonstrate before this Court as to how he was prejudiced by non-examination of the said treasurer, when the relevant records were examined in depth by both the authorities. A perusal of the appellate order passed by the ﬁrst respondent clearly demonstrates that all the contentions raised by the petitioner were considered and upon a thorough analysis of the material on record, the appellate authority conﬁrmed the ﬁnding recorded in the surcharge order dated 17.08.1998. 5. The petitioner cannot be permitted to convert this writ petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India into a further appeal against the appellate order passed by the ﬁrst respondent. In exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not undertake a further examination of the case on facts. The petitioner failed to make out any defect in the decision making process by either of the authorities below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of such jurisdiction. The writ petition is therefore found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J November 7, 2008 DSK