IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.662 OF 2014 DATED:17.4.2014 Between:
The Divisional Cooperative Officer/ Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies Parvathipuram Vizianagaram District … Appellant And Vedula Nageswara Rao and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.662 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge dt.13.3.2012 by which His Lordship has been pleased to dispose of a batch of matters. His Lordship has found on fact that surcharge proceedings were not decided in accordance with law. It is better to record the language of His Lordship.
“In the instant cases, the Deputy Registrar did not refer to any independent evidence that was adduced by the society. Even after the matter was remanded to him by the Tribunal with a specific direction that evidence must be recorded and the petitioners must be given an opportunity of cross examination, no steps in that direction were taken. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a writ petition filed by one of the Directors was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration and disposal.”
After recording as above, His Lordship thought it fit that substantial justice should be rendered. Accordingly His Lordship gave direction in the manner as follows:
“The petitioners have already deposited half of the amounts that were mentioned against their names. This Court feels that the liability of the petitioners can be restricted to the amounts that were already deposited by them in compliance with the directions issued by this Court.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of upholding the surcharge proceedings, but limiting the liability of the petitioners to half of the amount deposited by them.”
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, contradictory findings have been recorded by the learned trial Judge.
On one hand His Lordship has been pleased to hold that hearing was not taken in accordance with procedure and there is legal flaw and on the other hand, His Lordship upheld the surcharge proceedings partly. This is apparent inconsistency. Contradiction is not permissible under the law as the judicial process must be done and concluded with a reasonable degree of predictability and this element in our view is absolutely missing in the impugned judgment.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is set aside. We remand the matter for fresh hearing by the Hon’ble trial Judge in accordance with law. Deposit so made shall be kept till final decision is taken by the learned trial Judge.
We expect that the matter shall be dealt with by the learned trial Judge within a period of two months from date of production of this order as far as practicable as the issues are old one.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 17.4.2014 bnr