The proviso to Section 71 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 clearly states that no enquiry shall be held after the expiry of six years from the date of commission or omission.

1. The petitioners are the office bearers of the Nannilam Co-operative Agricultural Bank Limited, a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1961. By a notice dated 29-11 1982 the petitioners were called upon to show cause why a sum of Rs. 98,123. 61 should not be ordered to be recovered from the petitioners jointly and severally. The notice clearly shows that it was issued under S. 71 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. It is the validity of the said notice that is attacked in this writ petition.

2. Mr. K. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner refers me to S. 71 of the Act. In particular he relies upon pro viso to S. 71 of the Act which is as follows:

“Provided that no such enquiry (shall be commenced) after the expiry of six years from the date of any act of omission referred to in this sub-section.”

The enquiry that is referred to in the proviso is an enquiry that the Registrar is permitted to make into the conduct of a person or an officer servant of the Society. Before making, an enquiry, he may pass an order requring such person to repay or restore the money or the property which had been either misappropriated or misapplied by the persons concerned. A reference to the impugned show cause notice clearly shows that the alleged acts of commission and omission made by the petitioner; were during the period from 14-12-1972 to 12-11-1975. Even taking the latter date, viz., 12-11-1975 it goes without saying that the show cause notice dated 29-11-1982 is beyond the period of six years prescribed in the first proviso quoted above.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on be half of the respondents it is admitted that the period of misappropriation ranges from 14-12-1972 to the order date of enquiry. The enquiry is said to have been conduc ted on 1212-1975. Regarding the argument based on the first proviso to S. 71 of the Act, the explanation given in the counter affidavit is as follows:

“I further submit that Registrar has informed in Express Memo., Re. 26834/81 K dated 15-4-1982 that the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras has opined by letter dated 27-3-1979 that the time for initiating surcharge action under S. 71 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 can be taken from the date of knowledge of the irregularity. The last enquiry report was received, from the Enquiry Officer on 1-2-1977 which reveals the irregularity and the involvement of President and others in those affairs. It is taken as date of knowledge of the irregularity and hence the order dated 29-11-1982 is well within time limit.”

4. I am totally unable to accept the argument sought to be advanoed in the counter affidavit. The date of knowledge of the irregularity is not a criterion for finding out whether the action is barred by limitation or not. The proviso quoted above is clear that “no such enquiry” shall be held after the expiry of six years from the date of commission or omission. Therefore the question of knowledge does not at all come into the picture. Admittedly the opinion of the Government Pleader was based upon certain judgments of this Court relating to the starting point of limitation, where the party aggrieved has to be imputed with knowledge of the order. In such cases courts have held that the period of limitation will start running only from the date of the knowledge of the order. That principle cannot at all be applied to the proviso with which we are now concerned. The proviso is very clear and does not admit of any interpretation that is sought to be given in the counter affidavit. Accordingly, I hold that the show cause has been issued beyond the period of six years mentioned in the proviso and the writ petitioners are entitled to succeed. The impugned order is therefore quashed and the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.