S BALAPPA Vs. CO OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. Balappa, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders in C.T.A.No. 137/95 dt. 14-7-1996 of Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad (1 st respondent) herein and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter in short referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience) and pass such other orders.

(2.) Sri S. Narasimha Rao, learned counselrepresenting the writ petitioner submitted that at no point of time there was an enquiry relating to the writ petitioner and during audit etc., the writ petitioner was not fastened with any liability and it was found that Ravinder, Ramulu and Ambanna alone were responsible and show cause notice was issued as to why recovery should not be effected from them and the mere fact that the writ petitioner, at some point of time, had undertaken to pay the amount would not alter the situation. The learned counsel would maintain that a remedy, if any, may be elsewhere but definitely not by invoking Section 60 of the Act.

(3.) Per contra, the learned GovernmentPleader for Co-operation had pointed out the reasons which had been recorded by the first respondent at paras 8 to 13 and would contend that in the light of the specific undertaking given by the writ petitioner he would fall within the meaning of Section 60 of the Act and hence the writ petitioner cannot escape from the liability. The counsel also pointed out that in view of the facts and circumstances, the surcharge order even as against the writ petitioner definitely can be sustained.