Challa Kodanda Ram, J. - (1.) The writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.1.2010 passed by the 1st respondent -Tribunal in MP No. 18 of 2009 in Appeal (SR) No. 2625 of 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that the Joint Registrar, District Co -operative Office, Visakhapatnam vide his proceedings dated 26.2.2005 authorised Sri N.D. Milton, Deputy Registrar/OSD, DCCB Limited, Visakhapatnam, to conduct an enquiry under Sec. 51 of the A.P. Co -operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act") into the constitution, working and financial affairs of the petitioner -bank with regard to the irregularities pointed out in the preliminary enquiry report of the Deputy Registrar/Audit Officer, DCC Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam relating to entrustment of reconciliation work to private computer agencies and incurring an expenditure of Rs. 10.81 lakhs to the computer agencies without completion of the work including the purchase of the software development by bank worth Rs. 3.5 lakhs. After conducting the enquiry, the Deputy Registrar/OSD dropped the proceedings against the respondents 3 to 7. The enquiry report reveals that a sum of Rs. 9,63,972.24 ps was made to various agencies as excess for rendering accounting service. However, in the surcharge proceedings issued under Sec. 60 of the Act, the respondents 3 to 7 were exonerated from the charges particularly a finding was recorded that the allegations of the irregularities in entrustment of computer work to the agencies as well as payments made to the said agencies were found to be in order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the A.P. Co -operative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") on 15.10.2009 and sought a condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the appeal. In support of the delay condonation petition, the Chief Executive Officer filed an affidavit stating that on 16.9.2009 he addressed a letter to the Senior Advocate Sri L. Satyanarayana, Visakhapatnam seeking his legal opinion and thereafter on receiving the legal opinion, the matter was placed before the management under Resolution No. 14 dated 21.8.2009 and the same came to be approved on 25.9.2009. Further on account of the financial year ending and also on account of the debt relief work pressure in the bank, the papers could not be sent to the said Senior Advocate in time and there occurred a delay of 87 days. It is stated that the delay is neither willful nor wanton and it is only on account of the process involved in getting the approval, the delay was occurred. Hence, the delay condonation petition was filed alongwith the appeal. The Tribunal having not satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition, dismissed the delay condonation petition filed by the petitioner by an order dated 28.1.2010 holding that the Chief Executive Officer of the appellant bank did not take adequate care and interest even in preparation of the delay condonation petition. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
(2.) Heard Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, learned Counsel for the petitioner -bank, learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent -Co -operation, Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 and Dr. P.B. Vijayakumar, learned Counsel for the 8th respondent.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition, the petitioner -bank had set out all the correct facts and the delay has occurred only on account of getting the legal opinions and approval from the concerned authorities.;