Due to non-furnishing of required documents order of surcharge set aside.

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. Aggrieved by the surcharge order passed by the second respondent dated 9. 1987, as confirmed by the common judgment dated 22. 1990 made in S.T.C.A.Nos.66 to 71 of 1988 on the file of the first respondent, the petitioners numbering 6 have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

.2. The case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder: First petitioner herein is the President, second petitioner is Ex. Vice-President and petitioners 3 to 6 are Ex-Directors of the third respondent-Society. It is stated that when the first petitioner was the President, the erstwhile Secretary, now dead, was in sole charge of the entire business of the society as per the Bye-law and resolution, and thus making use of that opportunity, he had defalcated the funds of the said society and caused loss to the assets of the same. Neither the first petitioner nor the other petitioners was negligent or careless in supervising, checking the accounts and deducting the misappropriated amount from the delinquent. An enquiry under Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was ordered by the 2nd respondent and it was found that that the erstwhile Secretary had misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 21,668.78 including interest. That being so, the second respondent sent a notice in and by his proceedings No. Na.Ka. 14435/84 G(3), dated 4. 1985 directing the petitioners to make good the loss namely Rs.21,668.78 and also directed the first petitioner to take necessary action based on the enquiry report. Immediately on receipt of the said notice he has taken all necessary steps to recover the above amount from the erstwhile Secretary. Since they were not able to recover the said amount from him, they have suspended the erstwhile Secretary in and by a resolution of the Society dated 5. 1985. In the meantime, immediately after his suspension, he died. Hence the petitioners were disabled from recovering the said amount from the Secretary.

3. It is further stated that the third respondent Society preferred an application before the second respondent seeking to recover the defalcated amount from them. On the said application, the second respondent initiated surcharge proceedings against the petitioners. The second respondent without furnishing any document as claimed by them and without considering all the relevant points raised has arbitrarily passed surcharge order by his proceedings dated 9. 1987 directing them to pay the entire amount, in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the said surcharge order of the second respondent, the petitioners herein filed separate appeals before the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madras, the first respondent herein, in S.T.C.A.Nos.66, 68, 70, 67, 69 and 71 of 1988 respectively. The first respondent without considering the case of the petitioners and on misconception of law and facts, dismissed the appeals by a common judgment dated 22. 1990. Aggrieved by the said decision and having no other alternative remedy, the petitioners are obliged to file the present writ petition for quashing the said proceedings.

.4. Even though all the 3 respondents were duly served notices from this Court, even in the year 1990, none of them has chosen to file counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioners. As a matter of fact, the third respondent has not chosen to engage a counsel to contest the above writ petition.

5. In the light of the above factual position, I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for second respondent.

6. After taking me through the surcharge proceedings passed by the second respondent as well as the order of the Co-operative Tribunal the first respondent herein, the learned Counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions:

.(i) Inasmuch as the first petitioner being the Ex.President of the third resp