( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 227, is directed against the order of the Karnataka co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal 599 of 1972. ( 2 ) THE facts leading up to the petition are these : The petitioner was an Ex-Secretary of Kunimellalli Doddapramanada Pattin Vyavasaya sahakari Sangha Ltd, Kunimellalli Tk which is Respt. 1 before me. Respondent 2 is another Agricultural Produce Co-operative Society. On 3-4-1968 190 bags of manure-dia ammonium phosphate was purchased by the, Chairman of the First Respondent Society from the Second Respondent Society. The petitioner who was the, Secretary then, took over the; possession of the fertiliser. Out of the stock received by him, he accounted the sale of 153 bags but unable to account for the remaining 37 bags. On his failure to make good the loss, respondent 1 called upon him to pay Rs. 2,377-25 P towards the price of missing stock. He did not accede to the demand. Thereupon, respondent 1 raised a dispute under S. 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative societies Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The dispute was referred to an Arbitrator who after adjudication made the Award d/15th May 1972 in the following terms :" Plaintiff Society do pay Rs. 2,377-26 with future interest at 12% from today to defendant 2 Marketing Society. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 to pay the plaintiff Society Rs. 2,377-25 with future interest at 12% from today for payment by plaintiff Society to defendant 2 Marketing society. The liabilities of defendants 1, 3 and 4 is joint and several. The suit against defendants 5 to 9 is dismissed. They are directed to bear their own cost. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 do pay the cost of arbitration to plaintiff Society. " ( 3 ) THE Award directs respondent 1 to pay respondent 2 the value of 37 bags of fertiliser and the petitioner along with two other persons shquld reimburse the said amount td respondent 1. This shows that respondent 2 claimed the value of 37 bags of the fertiliser from respondent 1, and respondent 1 in turn asked its Secretary to make good the loss. ( 4 ) AGAINST the said Award, the petitioner alone preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has affirmed the Award by dismissing the appeal. Hence the writ petition. This shows that respondent 2 claimed the value of 37 bags of the fertiliser from respondent 1, and respondent 1 in turn asked its Secretary to make good the loss. ( 4 ) AGAINST the said Award, the petitioner alone preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has affirmed the Award by dismissing the appeal. Hence the writ petition. ( 5 ) AT the outset, Sri Hiremath, leraned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter involved in this petition is completely covered by the decision of this Court in K. Rana v. Katapady Service Co-operative society Ltd, WP. 2155/72/d/5-11-1974, and the dispute raised by respondent 1 against the petitioner was not maintainable before the Arbitrator. ( 6 ) THAT was a case in which the audit report of a Society stated that the President of one Society has not handed over certain stock of goods to another Society at the time of the merger of those two Societies The arbitrator to whom the dispute as to the liability of the President was referred under S. 70, held that the President was liable to make good the loss. The Award to that extent was challenged on the ground that the arbitrator or the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under S. 70, since it falls squarely under S. 69. Upholding that contention, venkataramiah, J. observed that if a dispute against an officer of a Society relates to, any deficiency caused in thei assets of the Society either by breach of trust or wilful negligence or by misappropriation or fradulently retaining any money or other property belonging to such Society, such dispute cannot be adjudicated under S. 70 of the Act, and it ought to be taken up for surcharge under S. 69 of the Act. These principles cannot, in my view, be extended to the case on hand section 69 provides : * * * * ( 7 ) IN order to take up surcharge proceedings under S. 69 of the Act, the loss caused to the Society or deficiency in the assets of the Society must have been discovered in the course of an audit, inquiry, inspection or the wmding of a Co-operative Society. The audit referred to therein is an audit which is required to be made under S. 63 of the Act. Inquiry contemplated therein is an inquiry under S. 64 of the Act. The audit referred to therein is an audit which is required to be made under S. 63 of the Act. Inquiry contemplated therein is an inquiry under S. 64 of the Act. Inspection stated therein is provided under S. 65 of the Act. The winding up of a Co-operative society is as per S. 72 of the Act. It is only in such statutory actions, if it is found that a person who is or was entrusted with the organisation or management of a Society has committed any wrong or committed any breach of trust or wilful negligence, the Registrar may taken proceedings under S. 69. In the instant case, the deficiency complained of against the petitioner was not discovered in audit, inquiry or inspection. It was in the course of official business, the management came to know that the petitioner has not accounted for the value of 37 bags of fertiliser. In such a case, it seems to mei that the right of the Society to raise a dispute under s. 70 of the Act is not taken away. I, therefore, reject the contention urged for the petitioner. ( 8 ) IT was next urged that the transaction in respect of which the petitioner was found liable to pay was not a transaction touching the business of the society, but was a personal transaction as between the Chairman of the first respondent society and the management of the second recspondent Society. This contention was rested on the fact that the said transaction was not admittedly entered in the account books of first respondent society. ( 9 ) I cannot accept this contention also. The petitions has admitted that he was given charge of the entire fertiliser purchased by the Chairman. The petitioner who was the Secretary of the Society could not have taken charge of the stock, if it was a private purchase made by the Manager himself. The petitioner has produced Ex. D1 d/23-1-1969 to show that ho has disposed of the remaining 37 bags. The contents of Ex. D1 have been disbelieved by the Arbitrator and also by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, mere omission to enter the purchase in the account books of the Society does not lead to an inference that the purchase in question was not as between the two Societies. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. D1 have been disbelieved by the Arbitrator and also by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, mere omission to enter the purchase in the account books of the Society does not lead to an inference that the purchase in question was not as between the two Societies. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, i make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .