Judgment The petitioner is a former Secretary of the second respondent Cooperative Society. An enquiry under section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act was directed to be held against the Society. Subsequent to the Report submitted under section 81 of the Act, surcharge proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Registrar, 1st respondent. The petitioner was given a notice to appear in the surcharge proceedings by Notice dated 26. 2004. The petitioner, in the mean while has given a statement before the Deputy Registrar stating that he is not aware the basis on which the proceedings were initiated. Therefore, he was unable to give a complete explanation. He also wanted to have a copy of the report submitted. In the mean while, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition challenging the Notice calling for enquiry under section 81 dated 26. 2004. But, so far as the interim application is concerned, he wanted the report submitted under section 81 dated 9. 2003 also to be stayed pending the proceedings. 2. The challenge to the Section 87 proceedings was done on the ground raised in para 3 (f) of the affidavit, wherein it is stated that the time limit for completing the proceedings under section 81 is not followed and Rule 104 was also not adhered to in this regard. Further, the proceedings under section 87(1) also should have been completed within six months. It is in that view of the matter, the present Writ Petition was filed. 3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 9. 2005. Pending the Writ Petition, interim stay was granted on the ground that the second proviso to Section 87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act was not adhered to. Even though an application for vacate stay was filed in WVMP No.1658 of 2006, the stay was made absolute on 112. 2007. However, the Registry was directed to expedite the hearing of the Writ Petition. But, in view of the interim stay of Section 87 proceedings, the petitioners request for injunction was rejected by this Court in WPMP No.30558 of 2005. 4. Mrs.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had initially participated in the surcharge proceedings by submitting his counter statement, subsequently it was felt that the statutory limitation period was not followed. 4. Mrs.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had initially participated in the surcharge proceedings by submitting his counter statement, subsequently it was felt that the statutory limitation period was not followed. Therefore, the proceedings are invalid and in that view of the matter, the Writ Petition came to be filed. 5. The question as to whether the limitation prescribed in this provision came to be considered by this Court in G.Paneerselvam vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society, Tirupur reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 901 . This Court held that the provisions are directory and no court can entertain the Writ Petition on the ground of limitation. It is also stated that if a person is issued with such a notice and there is a final order, there is always a remedy open to him by way of an appeal under section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and on that ground also, such Writ Petitions are not maintainable. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court presided by A.K.Ganguly, C.J (as he then was) in the judgment in A.Balaraman vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1032 has upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. In the light of the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.