Partly allowed

G Suryanarayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026WP/25139/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a surcharge order and subsequent execution proceedings while his statutory appeal was pending before the Cooperative Tribunal. The court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within three months and restrained the 6th respondent from initiating further action pursuant to the execution petition pending the appeal's disposal.

What did the court decide?

Cooperative Tribunal directed to dispose of appeal within three months; 6th respondent restrained from further action pursuant to E.P.No.4/2026-27 pending appeal; writ petition closed.

G Suryanarayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Cooperative Societies | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

APHC010458032026

[3457]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 25139/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

G SURYANARAYANA, S/O KURMI NAIDU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/O DOOR NO 7 76 VASUNDARA NAGAR VENKAMPETA PARVATHIPURAM VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT A P

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT A P 522237

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER FOR COOPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT 520000

¶16

THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT 535000

¶17

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY CUM DIVISIONAL COOPERATIVE OFFICER, PARVATHIPURAM DIVISION PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT 535501

¶18

DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK, REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER VIZIANAGARAM BRANCH VIZIANAGARAM 535001

¶19

KRISHNAPALLI PACS LTD, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT PARVATHIPURAM DIVISION PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT

¶20

¶21

535570

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toIssue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus by declaring the action of issuing the impugned Notice dated 27 07 2026 in E P No 4 2026 27 while the statutory Appeal under Section 76 of the A P Cooperative Societies Act 1964 in O A No 47 2025 is pending adjudication before the Cooperative Tribunal Vijayawada and further issuing Surcharge Order against the petitioner under Section 60 1 of the A P Cooperative Societies Act 1964 by the 4th Respondent in his Proceedings in Rc No 668 2019 C dated 19 05 2025 without there being allotment of specific duties as arbitrary illegal untenable and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the A P Cooperative Societies Act 1964 and consequently set aside the same in the interest of law justice and equity

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Notice of the 4th Respondent, Dated 27.07.2026 in Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.4/202627, pending disposal of writ petition

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.Y SUBRAHMANYAM

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶30

2.GP FOR COOPERATION

¶31

¶32

The Court made the following order:

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by filing of E.P.No.4/2026-27 before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It is submitted that surcharge order dated 19.05.2025 was passed, directing the defendants therein to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.24,39,170/-, together with interest from 01.04.2019 till realization.

¶34

It is further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which is pending consideration. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is an employee of 5^th respondent and is not directly involved in the affairs of the 6^th respondent. The petitioner cannot be held personally liable for the loans extended by the 6^th respondent. It is further contended that the proposed action of recovering the amount from the salary of the petitioner by filing E.P.No.4/2026-27 is irrational on part of respondent No.6.

¶35

It is submitted that all these issues have been raised by the petitioner before the Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada, and the matter is pending consideration before the competent authority. It is contended that, pending disposal of the appeal, initiation of proceedings in E.P.No.4/2026-27 would cause irreparable damage to the petitioner.

¶36

The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the surcharge order requires the petitioner and others to pay an amount of Rs.24,39,170/-, together with interest @ 18% p.a

¶37

¶38

from 01.04.2019 till realization. The interest component is also included in the

¶39

Execution Petition.

¶40

Considering the submissions and the fact that the appeal filed by

¶41

the petitioner is pending before the Tribunal, the Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada, shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. Pending consideration of the appeal, the 6^th respondent shall not initiate any further action pursuant to E.P.No.4/2026-27. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

____________________

¶45

17.09.2026 RJS/GCD

¶46

¶47

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶48

WRIT PETITION NO: 25139/2026

¶49

Dt: 17.09.2026

¶50

RJS/GCD

G Suryanarayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Suryanarayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases