Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
I.Seetharamaswamy, Wg District vs Prl. Secretary, Coop Dept., Hyderabad 2 ... on 23 August, 2024
APHC010145662014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No:
N 24309/2014
Between:
I.seetharamaswamy, Wg District ...Petitioner
AND
Prl Secretary Coop Dept
De Hyderabad & 2 others ...Respondent(s)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S APPADHARA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI
2. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India for the following relief/s:
"...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling the
records on the file of the AP Co-operative Tribunal at
Vijayawada, in O.A. No.40 of 2011 dated 02.06.2014,
conforming the surcharge orders in RC.No.673/
2005/B dated 15.10.2008 of the 2nd respondent is
illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural
justice, contrary to the provisions of the APCS Act
1964, violation of Article 14 & 21 of Constitution of
India, Quash the same and to pass such other order
or orders .....
2. The present Writ Petition is filed by one Seeta Rama
Swamy, who is ex-president of Primary Agricultural Society,
Rangapuram (hereinafter called as Society), assailing the order in
O.A. No.40/2011, dated 02.06.2014.
3. The unnecessary facts are shorn off and the relevant facts
are that the petitioner herein was elected as Chairman of
Rangapuram Society for the period from 1995 to 2002. An
enquiry was initiated under Section 52 of Andhra Pradesh
Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the
Act), on 27.08.2002, against the Society and appointed Sub-
Divisional Cooperation Officer, Chintalapudi, as Inspecting
Officer. The Inspecting Officer conducted detailed enquiry and
submitted a report to the District Cooperative Officer, Eluru, by
pointing out certain irregularities had been committed by the then
Secretary and Salesman/Attender by name V.B.V.S.S. Anjaneya
Sastry. The Enquiry Officer did not find fault against the
petitioner and no allegations made against him in the enquiry
report. The enquiry officer recommended for recovery of an
amount of Rs.4,46,745/- from the Secretary and Rs.25,125/- from
the Salesman. Basing on the enquiry report, the Rangapuram
Society, filed surcharge proceedings No.6/2002-03 for issuance
of surcharge order under Section 60(1) of the Act, against the
individuals.
4. During the pendency of the proceedings, a petition under
order 1 Rule 10 is filed to implead the petitioner as one of the
party to the surcharge proceedings by making certain irrelevant
and untenable allegations. The 2nd respondent without
considering the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by
the petitioner herein, allowed the said petition by an order dated
12.05.2005. Assailing the same, the petitioner herein filed the
Writ Petition No.14744 of 2005 and the said Writ Petition was
allowed and the Order dated 12.05.2005 was set aside by the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, vide order
dated 07.12.2006 and however, it is observed in the order that "it
will not preclude the authorities from conducting any other enquiry
as per law against the petitioner and proceed with the matter".
5. Pending disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the 2nd
respondent-The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Eluru
has initiated an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act and
appointed an enquiry officer for the very same allegations, for
which an enquiry was already conducted under Section 52 of the
Act and an enquiry report was submitted. Without finalizing the
surcharge proceedings or without accepting or rejecting the
enquiry report submitted to the 2nd respondent against earlier
inspection conducted under Section 52 of the Act and conducted
under Section 51 of the Act.
6. Against the report, surcharge proceedings were initiated
against the petitioner herein and the same was assailed in O.A.
No.40 of 2011, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative
Tribunal at Vijayawada. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the O.A.
with the observation that the allegations against the appellant
(writ petitioner) have been proved, accordingly, the 1st respondent
has passed surcharge order against the appellant and Secretary
basing upon the reasons assigned by the Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies considering the surcharge orders and
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 76 of
the Act.
7. Assailing the said order, the present Writ Petition came to
be filed on the sole ground that unless the enquiry conducted
under Section 52 of the Act, is wiped off, the 2nd respondent i.e.
Deputy Registrar of Cooperatives of Societies/Enquiry Officer
cannot conduct enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. Therefore,
prayed to allow the Writ Petition and to set aside the impugned
order passed in O.A. No.40/2011, and also relied on the judgment
of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad in
Co-operative Electric Supply Society Limited (CESS), Sircilla,
Karimnagar District, rep. by its Director v. State of Andhra
Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary(Co-operation) and others1
for the proposition that once enquiry ordered and report
2012 (4) ALT 322
submitted, held, not competent for respondents to order fresh
enquiry.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is under
Section 51 of the Act and earlier conducted enquiry is under
Section 52 of the Act and there is variance of conducting enquiry
under the two provisions and also contended that the judgment
referred by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable as
wherein that case, enquiry was conducted twice against the same
incumbent and wherein this case enquiry was conducted under
Section 52 of the Act against one Secretary and the attender of
the Society and the enquiry under Section 52 is altogether
different from the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act and
therefore prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
9. In view of the above said contentions, it is imperative to
extract Sections 51 and 52 of the Act.
Section 51 of the Act envisages that audit shall be
conducted on the accounts of the Society at least once in a
year and shall issue an audit certificate with such
particulars as may be prescribed, before the end of the
succeeding cooperative year, such audit shall primarily
cover examination of the debts, overdue, if any verification
of the cash balance, and securities and valuation of the
assets and liabilities of the society.
Section 52 of the Act authorizes to inspect books of the
Society.
10. Ordering an inquiry under section 51 of the act is an
administrative measure to make sure the Registrar can initiate
surcharge proceedings under Section 60 or not, and to hold an
enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a
society whether any redress can be provided for any
misappropriation, misapplication of funds, fraudulent retention,
breach of trust, or willful negligence of society's assets on his own
motion and shall, on the application of a society to which the
society concerned is affiliated, or of not less than one third of the
members of the Committee, or of not less than one fifth of the
total 'number of members of the society.
11. Section 52 (1) of the Act, which mandates that no such
inspection on the creditor's application shall be made unless the
creditor satisfies the Registrar that the debt in question is a sum
then due from the Society and the Society has failed to pay the
same within a reasonable time from the date of the demand made
by him. This clearly indicates that the purpose of inspection of the
books of the Society is to verify whether the Society is properly
managing its financial affairs and discharging its debts in time or
not.
12. Thus, the scope of inspection under Section 52 of the Act is
limited to the financial affairs unlike the enquiry under Section
51 of the Act, which is wide enough to encompass all the matters
relating to the Society.
13. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
society, the enquiries under Sections 51 and 52 are entirely
different and different purposes. The contention of the
petitioner is that the surcharge proceedings could not be passed
without wiping up the earlier enquiry under Section 52 of the Act
for the second time, unless rescind, cancelled or varied the earlier
order would be null and void and is liable to be quashed cannot
be accepted as the consequences of inquiries under section 51
and inspections under section 52 are different, and therefore,
they have different connotations and cannot be equated.
14. The judgment relied by the petitioner is not applicable to
the facts, as the enquiry was conducted twice against the same
incumbent and therefore, the court therein has held that no fresh
enquiry cannot be conducted against the same individual twice.
15. In the present case, the enquiry was conducted against the
petitioner herein under Sections 51 and inspection under section
52 is against other persons wherefore the contention raised by
the petitioner that unless the earlier proceedings under section 52
inspection carried is wiped, no consequence enquiry cannot be
conducted has no legal sanctity and the contention falls to earth,
no merit.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in
this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 23.08.2024
Harin
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
W.P.No. 24309 OF 2014
Date: 23-08-2024
Harin
