( 1 ) A short but an important question of law of general importance falls for decision in this writ petition. The question is whether a surcharge proceeding initiated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 60 of the andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, for short the Act , on the basis of the report of enquiry conducted under Sec. 51 of the Act becomes invalid and one without jurisdiction solely on the ground that such proceeding was initiated before the report of enquiry along with the findings of the registrar thereon is placed before the general meeting of the concerned society.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be stated briefly as under: the Joint Registrar/district Co-operative Officer, West Godavari district, eluru vide his proceedings R. C. (Co-opn.) No. 1974/95-A dated 13-3-1995 ordered an inquiry into the affairs of the Mrutyunjaya Co-operative Rural Bank limited, Achanta, the fourth respondent herein. During the enquiry, it was found that Sri Tammineedi Subba Rao, the petitioner herein, as President of the fourth respondent-Society and one C. Umamaheswara Rao, as the Secretary invested a sum of Rs. 3. 45 lakhs in the Ajjaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative society out of which a sum of Rs. 1. 45 lakhs was recovered leaving a balance of Rs. 2. 00 lakhs. The amount was not realised till date causing erosion of assets of the fourth respondent bank. It was found that the petitioner and the said C. Umamaheswara Rao were responsible for investment of funds of the Bank in violation of the provisions of Section 46 of the Act, and they failed to recover the balance amount from Ajjaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. In view of the afore-mentioned finding recorded in the enquiry report, the first respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District, thought it fit to initiate surcharge proceeding under Section 60 of the Act to recover the loss caused to the fourth respondent-society. Accordingly the first respondent has issued the show cause notice bearing R. C. No. 289/96-B/d (Surcharge I) dated 4-10-1966 impugned in this writ petition calling upon the petitioner to show-cause why a sum of Rs. 2. 00 lakhs with interest at 11. 5% from 29-12-1989 till the date of realization should not be recovered from the petitioner and c. Umamaheswara Rao, the then Secretary of the fourth respondent Bank jointly and severally.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that according to Section 51, the report of enquiry along with the findings of the Registrar thereon shall be placed before the next general body of the Bank, and in the instant case, the Section 51 enquiry report dated 31-5-1996 of the Enquiry officer was not placed before the general body of the Bank along with the findings of the first respondent herein who is the Registrar for Primary societies, before issuing the impugned notice dated 4-10-1996 under section 60 (1) of the Act, and as such the impugned notice should be held to be one without jurisdiction and competence. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance strongly on the two judgments of this Court, the judgment of M. N. Rao, J. , as he then was, in b. Srinivasulu and others vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others (in W. P. No. 6175/88 dated 27-3-1989), and the judgment of Dr. Motilal b. Naik, J. , in Gundeti Dathadri and others vs. The Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Nalgonda district (in W. P. No. 13944/91 dated 14-7-1994 ). The learned Counsel also stated that I too following the aforementioned two judgments granted the relief in some writ petition without disclosing the details of the writ petition. I do not remember any such decision being rendered by me. Be that as it may, if the statement of the learned Counsel for the petiti