( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings in surcharge order and the sale notice in e. P. No. 1/2001-2002 dated 5-2-2003 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently quash the same.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the wife of G. Nandi Reddy, a former President of the Society. During 1981-1985 allegedly certain irregularities were committed by him. Subsequently an inspection was conducted under Section 53 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short the Act ) and it was found that the husband of the petitioner committed certain irregularities and caused deficiency to the assets of the society to the tune of rs. 25,848/- between 1981-1985. Basing on the inspection report, surcharge notice dated 25-1-1995, was served on the petitioner on 16-4-1995. Consequently the surcharge order was passed on 27-9-1996 to recover the amounts and proceedings were also initiated under Rules 52 and 53 of the A. P. co-operative Societies Rules 1964 (for short hereinafter referred to as the rules ). The petitioner did not appeal against the said proceedings. E. P. was also filed against the petitioner for recovery of the surcharge amount in E. P. No. 1/2001-2002 dt. 18-5-2001 and was entrusted to the competent authority for execution. Challenging the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed.

( 3 ) THE contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are of two fold viz. , firstly; the surcharge proceedings ought not to have been initiated against her for the irregularities allegedly committed by her late husband while he was in office. Therefore, the surcharge order passed under Sec. 60 (1) of the Act and the consequential proceedings initiated under Rules 52 and 53 of the Rules are illegal. Secondly; no proper opportunity by way of conducting an independent enquiry was given to the petitioner before passing the order under section 60 (1) of the Act.

( 4 ) ON the other hand the learned government Pleader for Co-operative societies contended that as per the revelations of the enquiry conducted under section 53 of the Act, surcharge proceedings were initiated and notice was served on the petitioner, who is the legal heir of the original delinquent and that having received the said notice issued under section 60, the petitioner did not offer any explanation, nor the same was carried in appeal and, therefore, the petitioner cannot at the stage of execution raise this objection.

( 5 ) IN view of the above rival contentions, first it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions.

( 6 ) SECTION 60 deals with the surcharge and the said provision to the extent relevant is extracted as under: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force where in the course of an audit under Section 50 or an inquiry under Section 51 or an inspection under Section 52 or Section 53, or the winding up of a society, it appears that any person who is or was entrusted with the organization, affairs or management of the society or any past or present officer or servant of the society has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property or has been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or willful negligence or has made any payment contrary to the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, the registrar himself, or any person specially authorized by him in this behalf, of his own motion or on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor or contributor, may inquire into the conduct of such person or officer or servant and make an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof with interest at such rate as the Registrar or the person authorized as aforesaid thinks just or to contribute such sum to the assets of the society by way of compensation in respect of the