The relevant date for limitation purposes under Section 71 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, is the date on which the surcharge claim is lodged, not the date of issue or service of notice. A finding of wilful negligence is essential for a surcharge order under Section 71.

T. Sathiadev, J.

1. The impugned orders are assailed on two grounds. The petitioner was the Branch Manager of the first respondent Society at Kumb konam, during the year 1961 to 1964. A surcharge notice under Section 71 of the Act LIII of 1961 dated 22nd August, 1968, was served on him claiming a sum of Rs. 15,949 representing the loss suffered with reference to paddy business and informing him that h e had committed breach of trust and wilful negligence. Another notice under Section 71 was issued on 4th November, 1970 representing alleged loss suffered by the Society due to stock deficit under gunnies and super, phosphate to the value of Rs. 10,106. Again another notice under Section 71 was issued on 27th Febuary,1971, revering all these items, and holding that petitioner has to restore a sum of Rs. 11,116 with interest at l2per cent. He submitted his representation and a surcharge order was passed on 19th April, 1971, by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvarur, which was set aside by the Tribunal on 28th June, 1972, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. Again, notice was issued on 17th May, 1976, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,546 with interest. The Deputy Registrar, by order dated 20th August, 1976, held that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,546 because he (the petitioner) was solely responsible for the deficit suffered by the Society. On appeal, by a cursory order, the Tribunal confirmed it on 12th December, 1977. Aggrieved with the impugned orders, this writ petition is filed.

2. Mr. I. Subramanian, learned Counsel for the petitioner first contends that when the acts of commissions and omissions took place in the year 1962 to 1965, the surcharge notice issued from time to time ending with 27th February, 1971, is barred by limitation, by virtue of the proviso to Section 71. He also resists this, claim by reference to the surcharge notice issued on 20th September, 1976, to the effect that, though issued after the order of remand, the said surcharge not ice supersedes the earlier notice, and hence such a notice being issued beyond the period contemplated under the Act, the proceedings are invalid. He contends that when the emphasis under Section 71 is regarding the holding of the enquiry the first proviso by using the expression, "no such enquiry shall be commenced" means, that the relevant date would be the date on which the above surcharge notice was issued.

3. On behalf of the respondents, the learned Government Pleader contends, that, when the notice dated 27th February, 1971, refers to the fact that a surcharge claim had been filed on 8th May, 1968, irrespective of the later show-cause notices issued from time to time, the relevant date would be the date when the claim had been lodged. He equates the lodging of the claim to the filing of suits and petitions before Courts statutory tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities, and contends that if the date of issue of notice or the service of it be taken as a relevant date, it would enable these persons against whom proceedings were instituted, to avoid service of notice, and thereby, get the claim time-barred. Even on the aspect whether the date of notice would be relevant, he would state, that it may take some time to process the issue of notice, and therefore, the relevant date could be only the date on which the claim had been lodged and registered.

4. When the expression used is 'commenced' it could be only with reference to the date on which the claim had been lodged, as provided under Section 71. On such claims filed, they are registered, and thereafter further action is taken by the statutory authority who exercises powers by virtue of Section 7l. Therefore the relevant date for the first proviso to Section 71, would be the date on which a surcharge claim is lodged as provided under the Act.

5. Hence, when the claim had been filed on 8th May, 1968, on the acts of commissions and omissions pertaining to the period 1962 to 1965, th