Word "shall" used in Section 81(4) is only directory.

(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.[C.S.] No.150/1995 dated 18.03.1997 and S.C.No.6/1993 dated 28.04.1994 respectively and quash the same.)

The Order of the Cooperative Tribunal made in [C.S.] No.150/1995, dated 18.03.1997, relating to the Surcharge Proceedings is challenged in this Writ Petition.

2. P.Karuppusamy was the ex-clerk and one Ganapathi was the former Special Officer of the third Respondent Society. Jauvli stock deficit to the tune of Rs.5,76,221.93 was noticed during the year 1993. Surcharge Proceedings have been initiated against the said Karuppusamy and the Special Officer Ganapathi. Karuppusamy died on 16.11.1993. Surcharge proceedings continued against his legal heirs in accordance with law, by including them in the proceedings. Final orders were issued directing the legal heirs of Karuppusamy and the former Special Officer Ganapathi to pay the amount of Rs.5,76,221.93 jointly and severally with interest.

3. Challenging the surcharge proceedings, legal heirs of the deceased Karuppusamy viz., the Petitioner herein and others have filed appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal in C.M.A.No.150/1995. Former Special Officer Ganapathi also preferred C.M.A.No.120/1995. Both the appeals were dismissed by the common order dated 18.03.1997, which is challenged in this Writ Petition.

4. Legal heirs of Karuppusamy hotly contested the appeal. They have also filed the application I.A.No.41/1997, under Or.41 R.27 CPC, to receive additional documents. Parties against whom surcharge Order was passed made allegations and counter allegations against each other. Confirming the order of surcharge and finding that both Karupusami and Ganapathi are responsible for stock deficit, the Tribunal has dismissed both the appeals.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly urged that Section 81 enquiry was not completed within three months and in any event, not completed within six months, as stipulated under Section 81(4) of the Act and such an, the enquiry is vitiated, since it violates the mandatory time stipulated under Section 81 (4). Placing reliance upon 2005 (2) LLN 503 and other decisions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that if the enquiry was not completed within the stipulated period, surcharge proceedings initiated against Karuppusamy cannot be sustained.

6. In the present case, under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, enquiry was ordered on 14.08.1991. The Enquiry Report was issued by the Enquiry Officer on 12.05.1992.

7. In surcharge proceedings, as per the common order made in S.C.No.6/ 1993, dated 28.04.1994, sum of Rs.5,76,221.93 was ordered to be recovered. Challenging the same, legal heirs of Karuppusamy, including the Petitioner, have filed C.M.A.No.150/1995 and the then Special Officer has filed C.M.A. No.120/1995. Both the C.M.A.s were disposed of by a common Judgment. Aggrieved against that Judgment, the former Special Officer Ganapathi has filed Writ Petition W.P.No.11969/1997. That Writ Petition was dismissed by Justice K.Raviraja Pandian by order dated 25.01.2001. Writ Appeal No.837/2001 preferred by the said Ganapathi was also dismissed. When the Judgment in C.M.A.No.120/1995 has been confirmed by the Division Bench, the Petitioner cannot successfully challenge the surcharge proceedings and the Judgment of the Tribunal.

8. With the above observations, the matter could have been set at rest. But I have proceeded to consider further in view of the forcible arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Placing reliance upon a number of decisions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the time stipulated in Section 81(4) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act is mandatory and when the enquiry was not completed within the time stipulated as per Section 81(4), the surcharge proce