P.Solaisamy v. The Secretary to Government Handloom and Textiles Department
Case at a glance
Outcome
Remanded
Hence the impugned orders arequashed and the matter is remanded to third respondent for freshconsideration in the light of the observations made above
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The crux of the allegation was that he failed to collect the processing charges from the following Mills, which fell due on the dates mentioned. t/vz;/ epWtdj; jpd; bgah; ghf; fp ve;j njjp epYit Kjy;1/ fhh;j;jpf; blf;!;ily;!;. gHdp 4544.10 3/11/932/ fhh;j;jpf; blf;!;ily;!;. kJiu 31989.30…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.08.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P. NO.6761 OF 2007P.Solaisamy .. PetitionerVersus1.The Secretary to Government Handloom and Textiles Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
The Director of Handlooms & Textiles Kuralagam, II Floor, Chennai - 600 108.
The Assistant Director Handlooms & Textiles, Virudhunagar - 626 001. .. RespondentsPRAYER : This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.266 of 2002from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the entire records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in his proceedings No.Tha. Na.3/2000/E dated 11.09.2001passed in pursuance of the third respondent letterNa.Ka.365/99.Vu.E. Dated 16.09.2000 and subsequent proceedings and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.D.KrishnakumarFor Respondents : Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya Additional Government PleaderO R D E RThe Original Application in O.A.No.266 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the"Tribunal") is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner seeks to quash the surcharge proceedings https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ initiated against him by the third respondent under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafterreferred to as the "Act"). 3. The petitioner was a Joint Director of Handlooms and Textiles and he retired long back. The petitioner worked in the Srivilliputhur Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited as Administratorfor the period from 16.12.1991 to 08.06.1994. A notice dated16.09.2000, under Section 87 of Act, was issued to the petitioner asking him to submit why orders should not be passed under Section87 of the Act for recovery of the amounts mentioned therein.
The crux of the allegation was that he failed to collect the processing charges from the following Mills, which fell due on the dates mentioned. t/vz;/ epWtdj; jpd; bgah; ghf; fp ve;j njjp epYit Kjy;1/ fhh;j;jpf; blf;!;ily;!;. gHdp 4544.10 3/11/932/ fhh;j;jpf; blf;!;ily;!;. kJiu 31989.30 3/11/933/ vk;/v!;/blf;!;ily;!;. kJiu 15966.50 18/7/934/ uhn$!;thp blf;!;ily;!;. kJiu 7632.65 18/8/935/ _ fpUc;&zh ncwd;l;Y}k;!;. kJiu 5733.50 31.1.94 ???????????? 65866.05 ????????????5.The section head is relating to the non recovery of certain amounts from some of the establishment, to whom the yarn were sold on credit and the same is extracted here under:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ t/vz;/ epYitjhuh; bgah; bjhifve;j njjp Kjy; epYit1/ fnzc;& blf;!;ily;!; 3476.00 13/3/922/ uh$h irrp'; ngf; lhp. ehfh; nfhtpy; 29089.26 31/3/93 3/ ghg[ & ghg[. KJiu 2213.50 26/7/93 4/ _ ghyh$p blf;!;ily;!;. uh$ghisak; 2433.80 18/3/945/ _ rh; nthjah vz; lh; gpiur!; 20252.65 31/3/94 ???????????? bkhj; jk; U 57465.21 ????????????6.The petitioner sent a reply requesting to provide him various documents.
According to him, the requested documents were not furnished. The petitioner states that the report under Section81 of the Act, based on which, the said show cause notice dated16.09.2000 was issued was also not furnished. Ultimately, a final order dated 11.09.2001 was passed by the third respondent under Section 87 of the Act for recovery of a total amount ofRs.1,23,331.26. 7. The petitioner contends that the show cause notice dated16.09.2000 under Section 87 of the Act is after the expiry of the limitation period that is prescribed under the Act. Section 87 of the Act mandates that surcharge proceedings should be commenced before the expiry of seven years from the date of any act or omission, for which, the proceedings was commenced. 8. According to the petitioner, some of the items referred to in the show cause notice are belated and are hit by the limitation prescribed under Section 87 of the Act.
Operative part
9. In view of the same, I am not going into the merits of the matter that is canvassed by the petitioner. In fact, if it isso, I could have directed the petitioner to go before the appellate authority provided under the Act. Since I am convinced that some of the items covered under the surcharge proceedings under Section 87of the Act is beyond seven years, the matter should be remanded before the third respondent to consider afresh and to pass orders, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after giving opportunity to the petitioner by providing the necessary documents that he required including the enquiry report under Section 81 of Act, based on which, the proceedings under Section 87 of the Act was commenced. Hence the impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remanded to third respondent for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above. 10. Since the petitioner was aged about 67 years, when hefiled the Original Application, third respondent is directed to complete the process within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarAM/TKTo1.The Secretary to Government, Handloom and Textiles Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of Handloom & Textiles, Kuralagam, II Floor, Chennai 600 108. 3. The Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Virudhunagar 626 001. +1cc to Mr.D.Krishna Kumar, Advocate SR 40361MS(CO)km/2.9.W.P. NO.6761 of 2007
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence the impugned orders arequashed and the matter is remanded to third respondent for freshconsideration in the light of the observations made above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 — s. 87.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.