A surcharge order under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act justifies fund deductions, affirming the legitimacy of such actions against the petitioner.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 07.01.2020, passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioner's request to pay a sum of Rs.55,803/- due to the petitioner under the head of LIC maturity, a sum of Rs.18,183/-, which was deducted from him on account of the alleged shortage in gunny bag sale and a sum of Rs.2,06,624/-, which was deducted from his retirement benefits, along with statutory interest.

2. The second respondent, in his counter affidavit, has stated that a surcharge order has been passed against the petitioner as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and as per the surcharge order, on account of the irregularities committed by the petitioner, the aforesaid sums were deducted from the petitioner from and out of his retirement benefits. The details of the surcharge order passed against the petitioner have been disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent before this Court.

3. On the last hearing date i.e., on 06.11.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to peruse the surcharge order and argue the matter.

4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is unable to peruse the surcharge order, since he is unable to contact the petitioner.

5. When, only based on the fact that a surcharge order under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, has already been passed against the petitioner, the aforesaid sums have been deducted, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, the question of entertaining this writ petition does not arise. Since a surcharge order has already been passed against the petitioner, under which the sums determined are due and payable by the petitioner to the third respondent – Society on account of the mis- appropriation of funds of the third respondent – Society and the details of the same have also been furnished in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent before this Court, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order dated 07.01.2020, passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioner's request for payment of the sums of money as claimed by him in his representation.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.