The court held that a review application is not maintainable when the underlying proceedings have already been initiated and concluded, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in administrative actions.

ORDER :

The review application has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking to review my order dated 21.07.2023 in W.P.No.30477 of 2018.

2. I have heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the review applicant, Mr.B.Tamilnidhi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2. The third respondent refused to receive notice and the fourth respondent, despite service of notice, has not chosen to appear in person or through a counsel. I have also gone through the records.

3. While disposing of the said writ petition, I had directed the first respondent, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Erode, to proceed with the Section 87 surcharge proceedings, after giving reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner. I further directed the exercise to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. I also found that the writ petitioner was not exonerated and the writ petition itself was premature.

4. It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner filed a Writ Appeal challenging my order dated 21.07.2023. However, the said W.A.No.1676 of 2024 was withdrawn with liberty to prefer a review application before me. Subsequently, the review was filed along with an application to condone delay and considering the fact that the writ petitioner had lost time in challenging my order before the Hon'ble Division Bench, I also condoned the delay and thereafter, the review application has been heard by me.

5. Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the review petitioner, would first and foremost submit that the Enquiry Officer has not recommended initiation of Section 87 surcharge proceedings. He would further submit that the petitioner is not an authority to sanction loan to the members of the second respondent Society and it is only the Board of Directors, who pass resolutions, sanctioning loans and as Secretary, the petitioner was bound to implement the said resolutions passed by the Board of Directors. He would therefore submit that even the loan waiver scheme, in pursuance of G.O. (Ms.)No.50, Food and Co-operation Department, dated 23.05.2016 contemplated a committee be formed to ascertain beneficiaries, who would be entitled to waiver of loans and the entire exercise shall be carried out by the committee to which the President of Society, second respondent is also a party and ultimate decision to waive the loan was taken only by the first respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Prakasam, would submit that no liability can be imputed on the writ petitioner and further laying specific emphasis on the Enquiry Officer's report dated 04.06.2018, he would submit that when the said report did not recommend initiation of surcharge proceedings against the writ petitioner, the same being a pre-condition, the order passed in the writ petition, directing the surcharge proceedings be taken against the petitioner is erroneous on the face of the record and therefore, calls for review.

6. The learned counsel would further submit that the order directing recovery of loss sustained by the Government from the petitioner was without giving any notice to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Prakasam, no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed and the order itself recognizes the loss being caused by all employees of the second respondent Society and the Secretary alone has been made a scape goat.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even in terms of Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (herein after referred to as “the Act”), the first respondent was not entitled to order enquiry on the basis of the complaint of just two members, viz., the respondents 3 and 4. In any event, he would submit that the enquiry officer, who conducted an elaborate enquiry, having not recommended sur- charge proceedings against the petitioner, no proceedings under Section 87 of the Act ca