(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26723 of 2026, dated 14.07.2026.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. This intra-Court appeal assails the order dated 14.7.2026 passed in W.P.No.26723 of 2026, whereby the challenge made to the notice issued under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 [for short, “the Act”], dated 21.5.2026 came to be rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The appellant has filed the writ petition challenging the notice issued under Section 87 of the Act and learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that, the notice issued is without jurisdiction, as no proceedings could be initiated under Section 87 of the Act against a third party, who is not an employee, nor a member of the Society.

4. The learned Single Judge considered the issue and taking note of the amendment carried out to Section 87 of the Act in the year 2022, concluded that the notice issued, as against the appellant, is maintainable and thereby dismissed the writ petition.

5. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Section 87 of the Act, as amended by Act 33 of 2022 with effect from 20.6.2022. For ease of reference, Section 87 of the Act is extracted hereunder:

                   “87. Surcharge.

                   (1) Where in the course of an audit under section 80 or an inquiry under section 81 or an inspection or investigation under section 82 or inspection of books under section 83 or the winding-up of a society, it appears that any person who is or was entrusted with the organisation or management of the society or any past or present officer or servant of the society has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property or been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence or has made any payment which is not in accordance with this Act, the Rules or the bye-laws, the Registrar himself or any person specially authorised by him in this behalf, of his own motion or on the application of the board, liquid a tor or any creditor or contributory may frame charges against such person or officer or servant and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned and in the case of a deceased person, to the representative who inherits his estate, to answer the charges, make an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof with interest at such rate as the Registrar or the person authorised as aforesaid thinks just or to contribute such sum to the assets of the society by way of compensation in respect of the misappropriation, misapplication of funds, fraudulent retainer, breach of trust or wilful negligence or payments which are not in accordance with this Act, the Rules or the bye-laws as the Registrar or the person authorised as aforesaid thinks just:

                   Provided that no action shall be commenced under this sub-section after the expiry of seven years from the date of any act or omission referred to in this subsection:

                   Provided further that the action commenced under this sub-section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of such commencement or such further period or periods as the next higher authority may permit but such extended period or periods shall not exceed six months in the aggregate.

                   (2) Without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken or may be taken under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any sum ordered under this section to be repaid to a registered society or recovered as a contribution to its assets may be recovered as if it were an arrears of land revenue and for the purpose of such recovery, the Registrar shall have the powers of a Collector under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864).

                   (3) This section shall apply notwithstanding that such person or officer or servant may have incurred criminal liability by his act.

                   (4) The Registrar or the person authorised by him shall, when acting under this section, have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely:-

                   (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

                   (b) requiring the discovery and production of any documents;

                   (c) reception of evidence on affidavits;

                   (d) requisitioning any public record from any Court or office;

                   (e) issuing Commission for examining of witnesses.”

6. As rightly noted by the learned Single Judge, prior to the amendment carried out in the year 2022, surcharge proceedings under Section 87 is to be proceeded only against the servant or member of the Society. However, subsequent to the amendment to Section 87, where in the course of an audit under Section 80, or an inquiry under Section 81, or an inspection or investigation under Section 82, or inspection of books under Section 83, or winding up of a Society, if it appears that, any person who is or was entrusted with the organisation or management of the Society or any past or present officer or servant of the Society either on his own or in connivance with any other person has misappropriated, then the Registrar himself or the authorised officer, on his own motion or on the application of the Board, may frame charges against such person or officer or servant or such other person and after giving a reasonable opportunity proceed further.

7. Admittedly, the perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that the very purpose of the amendment was to bring in any other person who has involved in the misappropriation along with servant of the Society or member of the Society may also to be proceeded under Section 87 of the Act. When the Society had suspicion that the appellant is involved in the misappropriation, as per the powers available under the amended provision of Section 87, they have issued notice under Section 87 of the Act, which is assailed in the writ petition.

8. In view of the above, the notice challenged on the ground of jurisdiction is totally misplaced, as the amended provision allows the Registrar or the competent authority to frame charges against such person or officer or servant, including such other person who have involved in the misappropriation. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has rightly interpreted the provision and held that there was jurisdiction to proceed as against the appellant and has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

9. Now learned counsel for the appellant contends that the reply submitted by the appellant be considered on its own merits without being influenced by the order passed in the writ petition.

10. We find from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has only referred to the provision and held that the notice issued as against the appellant is maintainable under Section 87 of the Act. We find no error in the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. We make it clear that any order passed pursuant to the proceedings under Section 87 of the Act shall be on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment or in the order passed in the writ petition.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.