A Section 87 surcharge notice is not ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction absent jurisdictional defect or mala fides.

A surcharge proceeding was initiated against T. Arjunan under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.

After the original surcharge order, Arjunan preferred an appeal under Section 152 of the Act.

The Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases remanded the matter to the original authority for retrial and for passing a fresh order.

Pursuant to the remand, the competent authority issued a fresh notice under Section 87(1), which Arjunan challenged before the High Court in W.P. No. 35579 of 2015.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that Arjunan had already submitted his explanation.

The Managing Director of the Society filed the present intra-Court appeal against that order.

During the pendency of the appeal, the competent authority conducted the enquiry after affording opportunity to the parties and passed a final surcharge order dated 10 October 2024.

Whether a fresh notice issued under Section 87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act pursuant to a remand order could be quashed merely because the noticee had previously submitted an explanation?

Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the notice issued under Section 87(1), absent a challenge based on lack of jurisdiction or mala fides?

Whether the writ appeal required further adjudication after a final surcharge order had been passed during its pendency?

The Court applied Section 87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, which authorises initiation of surcharge proceedings and requires the concerned person to be given an opportunity to submit an explanation and participate in the enquiry.

It also applied Section 152 of the Act, which provides an appellate remedy before the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases against the final surcharge order.

The Court held that a notice under Section 87(1) ordinarily should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction or is vitiated by mala fides.

A fresh notice issued pursuant to a remand order gives the affected person a further opportunity to submit or reiterate an explanation and participate in the fresh enquiry.

The Single Judge’s basis for quashing the notice—that the respondent had already submitted an explanation—was held insufficient.

Since the Tribunal had remanded the matter for retrial and a fresh order, the competent authority was justified in issuing a fresh Section 87(1) notice.

The respondent could have submitted a fresh explanation or reiterated the earlier one and participated in the enquiry; the existence of an earlier explanation did not invalidate the subsequent notice.

Further, the notice did not warrant writ interference because no jurisdictional defect or mala fide exercise of power was established.

As a final surcharge order had subsequently been passed after providing an opportunity of hearing, the immediate challenge to the notice no longer required adjudication on merits.

Any grievance against the final order had to be pursued through the statutory appeal under Section 152.

However, since the competent authority had already completed the enquiry and passed a final surcharge order dated 10 October 2024, the writ appeal was disposed of without further adjudication on merits.

The Court left it open to the aggrieved party to challenge the final order before the Special Tribunal under Section 152 of the Act.

No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.