S.M.P. MAHARAJAN Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of Usilampatti Co -operative Urban Bank Limited - A 411, governed by the Tamil Nadu Co -operative Societies Act, 1983 (in short ?the Act?). The petitioner is an agriculturist. He had secured a loan of Rs.42,000/ - from the Society, which became over due as on 31.12.2007. The total amount, including interest due from the petitioner was Rs.47,938/ - as on 31.12.2007. While so, the Government introduced Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Waiver Scheme, 2008. As per the said Scheme, if half of the amount over due is paid on or before 29.02.2008, the petitioner shall be entitled for waiver of the remaining half. Applying the said Scheme, the petitioner was given waiver. Later on, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.4085/2009/Sa.Pa., dated 28.11.2011, the respondent herein, directed the Special Officer of the Society to recover the waived amount, which, according to the respondent, was given illegally for the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for such waiver. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) A detailed counter has been filed by the respondent, wherein it is stated that an inspection under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Co -operative Societies Act was conducted, in which a report was submitted that the waiver given to 158 members, including the petitioner, was illegal as they were not eligible for such waiver. It is based on the said report under Section 82 of the Act, the Deputy Registrar has issued the impugned order, it is contended.

(3.) AT the outset, I should state that the report under Section 82 of the Act can be the basis to initiate surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act, suo -motu, by the Deputy Registrar on his own motion or on the application of the Society. In the case on hand, if the Deputy Registrar had found from the report under Section 82 of the Act that the waiver given to the petitioner was not in accordance with the Waiver Scheme, he should have initiated surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act on his own motion. In the event, such proceeding is initiated under Section 87 of the Act, necessarily opportunity is to be given to the petitioner and only after holding necessary enquiry as to whether the petitioner is entitled to waiver scheme or not, final award should be passed. It is only after such final order being passed against the petitioner, any amount due under the award could thereafter be recovered. But, in this case, curiously, the Deputy Registrar, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice.