Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed, challenging the notice issued by the first respondent, Under Section 167 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, and the interim order of attachment, dated 31.03.2009, attaching the property belonging to the second petitioner, who is the wife of the first petitioner. The second respondent had issued a notice, dated 31.03.2009, under Section 167 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, calling upon the petitioners to furnish security for a sum of Rs.5,21,900/-, to satisfy the decree that may be passed against them. It had also been stated that, on the failure of the petitioners to furnish such security the immovable property, specified in the schedule, annexed to the notice, would be conditionally attached. On the same date, an order had been passed, restraining the petitioners from transferring the property and from creating a change on the property specified in the schedule, by way of a sale, gift or otherwise. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had further submitted that a surcharge proceedings under Section 87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, is pending against the first petitioner for the alleged misappropriation of funds belonging to the second respondent bank. While so, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 31.03.2009, in respect of the properties belonging to the second petitioner, without any power or authority. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has not been in a position to show the power or the authority to pass the impugned order, dated 31.03.2009, restraining the second petitioner from transferring and from creating a charge on the properties in question. Even though the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the order passed by the first respondent, dated 31.03.2009, is only an interim order and that it is subject to further proceedings, they have not been in a position to show as to how the said order is sustainable in the eye of law. Even if the first petitioner is liable as per the surcharge proceedings initiated against him for the alleged misappropriation of funds of the second respondent bank, the properties belonging to the second petitioner cannot be attached, unless it is shown that the property had been acquired by her, after his death. Even if the first petitioner is liable as per the surcharge proceedings initiated against him for the alleged misappropriation of funds of the second respondent bank, the properties belonging to the second petitioner cannot be attached, unless it is shown that the property had been acquired by her, after his death. However, in the present case, for the alleged misappropriation of the first petitioner, the first respondent, cannot pass the impugned order, dated 31.03.2009. Accordingly, the notice issued by the first respondent, dated 31.03.2009, and the consequent order passed by the first respondent, dated 31.03.2009, restraining the petitioners from transferring and from creating a charge on the properties belonging to the second petitioner, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the said impugned notice and order passed by the first respondent, dated 31.03.2009, are set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.