Allowed

V. Venkata Naidu, v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Mar 2016WP/20492/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court allowed two writ petitions filed by Ex-Presidents of a Cooperative Society. The court set aside surcharge proceedings initiated under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, holding they were issued without conducting the enquiry mandated by Section 60 of the Act. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to 2nd respondent for fresh consideration; liberty to file representation.

V. Venkata Naidu, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

W.P.Nos.20492 & 20647 OF 2006

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners pray for writ of Certiorari to call for the records leading up to and inclusive of proceedings Rc.No.11/2762/2003-C and 13/2762/2003-C dated 09.06.2005 of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶5

The petitioners in these two writ petitions were Ex-Presidents of the Vizia Cooperative Society Limited, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. The 1^st respondent, it is alleged, conducted enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’). The enquiry initiated under Section 51 of the Act resulted in issuance of surcharge proceedings dated 09.06.2015 which are assailed in these writ petitions.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that surcharge proceedings have been initiated without conducting enquiry as contemplated by the statutory scheme and on the short ground, the surcharge proceedings are liable to be set aside. Adverting to the facts which led to initiation of enquiry under Section 51, learned counsel contends that the loans which were sanctioned by the petitioners were repaid fully by the borrowers/members. Had an enquiry been conducted before issuing surcharge orders, the petitioners would have had the opportunity to explain that there is no necessity for issuing surcharge proceedings. Learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned proceedings.

¶7

Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for

¶8

3^rd respondent, submits that the surcharge proceedings, no doubt, are issued without conducting enquiry and, therefore, she suggests that the impugned proceedings may be set aside and the matter be remanded to the 1^st respondent to proceed in accordance with law. On the submission

¶9

of learned counsel for the petitioners

¶10

on discharge of loans by the members, learned counsel for

¶11

3^rd respondent submits that unless and until the records are verified in a properly instituted enquiry, the assertions of petitioners cannot be accepted and pending enquiry closed. Therefore, she concedes to the limited extent of setting aside the orders impugned and remanding the proceedings for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law.

¶12

Having regard to the limited submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am satisfied that the following order would satisfy the requirements of law and principles of natural justice.

¶13

“Writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside on the ground that they are issued without conducting enquiry as contemplated by Section 60 of the Act. The matter

¶14

is remanded to 2^nd respondent for consideration afresh in accordance with law. As and when notice is received

¶15

by petitioners from 2^nd respondent, the petitioners are given liberty to file representation/details to 2^nd respondent on proposed recovery by way of surcharge proceedings. The 2^nd respondent is under obligation to consider the representation/objections

¶16

and if the circumstances still warrant continuation of surcharge proceedings, he is at liberty to do so. There shall be no order as to costs”.

¶17

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶18

S.V.BHATT, J

¶19

Date:10.03.2016 Lrkm

V. Venkata Naidu, v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Venkata Naidu, v. The Govt. 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

Zaveri Gold Vs Talwar Cars Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd., Vs M/s. Vaishnavi Bio-Tech Limited

Mr.Gaurav Tiwari Vs M/s.eRetail Cybertech Private Limited

The Official liquidator, Vs from DT.01-04-2014 to 30-09-2014.

The Official liquidator, Vs from DT.01-04-2014 to 30-09-2014.

Muppala Appa Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its