Point of Law :proceedings initiated against the father of his client are non-est in the eye of law does not hold good for the reason, the purpose of the enquiry under Sections 50, 51 and 52 of the Act is only for preliminary ascertainment of facts and as such, at that stage, there is no question of fixing any liability on any individual. With respect to inspection under Section 52, there is no requirement of issuing any notice except where there is a requirement of ascertainment/eliciting clarifications. In that view of the matter, even assuming for argument sake that the petitioner’s father is no more by the time of inspection, the inspection report, by itself, does not get invalidated as the same is the only basis and prima facie material for enquiry under Section 60 of the Act

JUDGMENT :

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

1. The proceedings dated 30.08.2019 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Mancherial, the 1st respondent herein, is challenged before this Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the legal heir of one Sri. Puskur Narsing Rao, who was President of the 4th respondent Co-Operative Society. Alleging certain omissions and commissions on the part of the father of the petitioner, enquiries were conducted under Sections 50 and 52 of the Telangana Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and based on the report, liability was sought to be fastened on him on account of the fact that his father passed away on 04.06.2015. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the very notice for conducting enquiry against his father, under Section 52 of the Act, was dated 06.06.2015, hence, the report emanated from the said enquiry itself is null and void and based on such report, no proceedings could have been initiated against him. It is his further case that though the show cause notice was issued on 20.08.2019 invoking Section 60 of the Act proposing to conduct enquiry duly providing time for filing explanation/objections up to 29.08.2019, the 1st respondent had passed the impugned proceedings without conducting enquiry as stated in the notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal heirs of the office bearer of the Society cannot be made liable for the omissions and commissions of the office bearer. G. Anasuyamma vs. Kandulapuram Primary Agricultural Society, 2004 (1) ALD 526. The learned counsel, placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred to by the learned Single Judge in the 1st cited judgment, would assert that the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act are akin to a suit and a detailed enquiry is required to be conducted duly providing the opportunity of examining and cross-examining the witnesses and the material available therefor. According to him, no action could be taken directly based on either the report under Section 51 or the one under Section 52 of the Act without conducting independent enquiry.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Co-Operative Societies Sri. Durga Reddy, opposes the Writ Petition and submits that in terms of Section 76 of the Act, there is an effective alternative remedy of Appeal to the Co-Operative Tribunal. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 and submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of Appeal under the Act. The learned Government Pleader draws attention to the provisions of Section 60 existing as on today, as per which even legal heirs of a deceased office bearer is liable for the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act.

5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, this Court does not consider it necessary to invite counter from the respondents as the issue raised is a pure question of law, hence, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that:

“The proceedings initiated against the father of his client are non-est in the eye of law does not hold good for the reason, the purpose of the enquiry under Sections 50, 51 and 52 of the Act is only for preliminary ascertainment of facts and as such, at that stage, there is no question of fixing any liability on any individual. With respect to inspection under Section 52, there is no requirement of issuing any notice except where there is a requirement of ascertainment/eliciting clarifications. In that view of the matter, even assuming for argument sake that the petitioner’s father is no more by the time of inspection, the inspection report, by itself, does not get invalidated as the same is the only basis and prima facie material for enquiry under Section 60 of the Act.

Secondly, the argument of the learne