Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
E.Jeya – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD)No.9617 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Kumar Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Sudhanraj
For the Respondents: Mr.S.S.Madhavan Additional Government Pleader
Surcharge order quashed for violating natural justice by lacking prior notice and hearing; treated as show cause notice.
Headnote:The impugned order was passed under Section 87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, directing legal heirs of deceased secretary to pay Rs.68,18,264/- for alleged negligence causing loss to society via fire accident; FIR registered, matter under investigation. Petitioner, wife of deceased, challenged order for lack of prior notice and hearing. Court found violation of natural justice principles as no opportunity afforded despite reply submitted seeking documents. Issue framed: Whether impugned surcharge order valid without notice or hearing. Ratio: Unilateral quantification of loss without personal hearing contravenes natural justice; order treated as show cause notice, enquiry to proceed with documents furnished. Writ petition disposed with directions to treat order as show cause notice, consider reply, furnish documents, no precipitate action till enquiry conclusion, contentions open.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to surcharge order for deceased's negligence in fire. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. no prior notice or hearing violates natural justice. (Para 4) |
| 3. order treated as show cause; fresh enquiry directed. (Para 5) |
| 4. petition disposed without costs. (Para 6) |
O R D E R
The petitioner assails the order dated 24.12.2025 issued by the third respondent, whereby the petitioner and the other legal heirs of the deceased B. Sritharan were called upon to pay a sum of Rs.68,18,264/- towards the loss allegedly caused by the deceased B. Sritharan while he was serving as Secretary of the fourth respondent Society.
2.Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. T.
Sudhanraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.S. Madhavan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.
3.The petitioner is the wife of the deceased B. Sritharan, who was working as Secretary in the fourth respondent Society. The petitioner’s husband succumbed to burn injuries sustained in a fire accident in his office. The respondent Society alleges negligence on the part of the deceased in relation to the said accident. In this regard, an FIR has also been registered and the matter is under investigation.
4.The impugned order reveals that the third respondent had unilaterally quantified the loss allegedly caused to the Society on account of the negligence attributed to the deceased husband of the petitioner. The petitioner and the other legal heirs of the deceased were neither issued prior notice nor afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order. However, they have submitted a detailed reply calling upon the third respondent to furnish vital documents to enable them to put forth their defence. Hence, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
5.In light of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The impugned order passed by the third respondent shall be treated as a show cause notice;
(ii) The third respondent is at liberty to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and the other legal heirs of the deceased B.
Sritharan and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law;
(iii) Till the conclusion of the enquiry under Section 87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983, the respondents shall not take any precipitate action against the estate left behind by the deceased B. Sritharan;
(iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open; and (v) It is needless to state that the third respondent shall furnish the vital documents sought by the parties concerned in connection with the enquiry.
6.There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
