HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28434 of 2008 Date : 21.11.2011 Between : V.B.Nageswara Rao. …..Petitioner And The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Peddapuram & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28434 of 2008 ORDER : Though interlocutory matters are listed, at the request of learned counsel for petitioner, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of. This writ petition is filed, questioning the order, dated 19.11.2008, passed by the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in M.P.No.8 of 2008 in O.A.SR.No.1145 of 2008. The petitioner was Paid Secretary in the 2nd respondent-Society. On the allegation that he used to keep huge cash balance with him regularly for using the same for his personal purposes, an inquiry was conducted under Section 52 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and based on the findings recorded in the said inquiry, surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 60(1) of the said Act, and an order, dated 05.12.2005, is passed in Rc.No.1682/03-D(1), ordering to recover an amount of Rs.1,01,652.98 paise along with interest from the petitioner. When the petitioner failed to pay the said amount, and at the stage when steps were taken to execute the surcharge order, he filed appeal in the year 2008 before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, along with an application in M.P.No.8 of 2008 to condone the delay of 820 days in filing the appeal against the surcharge order. The said application is dismissed by the impugned order. Questioning the said order, this writ petition is filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the surcharge order was an exparte order and further, in view of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, he was arrested, as such, he was upset mentally and physically and as such, he could not approach the Tribunal within the limitation period. In this case, it is to be noticed that the surcharge order was passed as yearly as on 05.12.2005. Though the petitioner has received the said order, he could not pursue any other remedy available under law nearly for three long years. When the respondents were taking steps to recover the amount in execution proceedings, at that stage, he had approached the appellate Tribunal along with an application to condone the abnormal delay of 820 days. Except stating that he was arrested in the criminal proceedings initiated against him and was upset physically and mentally, there is no valid explanation, explaining the inordinate delay of 820 days in filing the appeal. This Court is also of the view that the reasons stated by the petitioner in the petition for condonation of delay, are not sufficient so as to condone the abnormal delay of 820 days in preferring the appeal. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, rejecting the application for condonation of delay. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st November 2011 ajr