Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 17 October, 2024
APHC010293862018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 13323/2018
Between:
S.Venkateswarlu and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. L J VEERA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 10912/2018
Between:
G.A.Padmanabha Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Prl Secy Agrl Coop Dept State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
The Court made the following Common Order:-
Since the subject matter involved in these Writ Petitions is one
and the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these
cases by way of this common order.
2. These writ petitions are filed assailing the surcharge notice
issued against the petitioners vide Rc.No.31/2017-C dated
07.03.2018. The cause of action for issuing surcharge notice is that
some amount was granted towards payment of crop insurance
premium to the insurance company and issued adjustment challans to
that effect to the 4th respondent and the 3rd respondent stated that the
petitioners have committed irregularities and misutilized the funds of
the society and not recovered the overdue amounts from the loanees.
Hence, surcharge notice was issued against the petitioners.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed on the
ground that surcharge notice is issued with predetermination and the
same is only fait accompli. The respondents cannot propose any
action against Ex-CEOs of the society leaving the audit team and the
managing committee of the society, though they are also manifestly
responsible in this regard. As such, the show cause notice is ex-facie
illegal, selective and pre-determinative and it is also barred by time
and the 4th respondent alone is responsible for the lapses and the said
surcharge notice is issued after long period that too after retirement of
the petitioners.
4. Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent
submits that against the show cause notice, writ petition is not
maintainable and also contends that petitioners has not raised any
valid grounds to meddle with the impugned notice dated 07.03.2018.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the impugned
surcharge notice is barred by limitation and relied on the judgment of
the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S.Ramadas v. The
Subordinate Judge and others, whereas the learned single Judge
held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 60 of the Andhra
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 are hopelessly time barred
and by no stretch of imagination can the authorities be permitted to
sleep over the matter that long and then initiate proceedings, that too,
penal in nature, at their sweet will and pleasure and as and when they
want. Accordingly, the said writ petition is allowed and set aside the
surcharge proceedings therein on the ground that it is barred by
limitation.
6. In view of the judgment referred supra, this Court is of the
opinion that it is better to relegate the matter to the authorities to pass
appropriate orders.
7. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside
impugned surcharge notice dated 07.03.2018 and the matter is
remanded back to the respondent No.3 to adjudicate upon the issue
once again basing upon the judgment referred supra. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
Date: 17.10.2024
KBN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.13323 and 10912 of 2018
Date: 17.10.2024
KBN
