Judgment : 1. The petitioner was formerly the Secretary of "The Nilgiris District Teachers Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society" which is a cooperative society governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies by his proceedings dated 12.06.2013 ordered inspection into the affairs of the said society under Section 82 of the said Act. The Sub Registrar, who was appointed to inspect the affairs of the society in general, submitted a report on 20.09.2013. 2. Alleging that during such inspection no opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings, he made a representation to the Sub Registrar on 22.11.2013 to afford opportunity to him to participate in the proceedings under Section 82 of the Act. According to the petitioner, since it was not considered he had to file a writ petition in W.P.No.34265 of 2013 seeking appropriate direction to the Sub Registrar to afford sufficient opportunity. When the matter came up for hearing before this court on 06.01.2014, it was brought to the notice of this court that on completing the inspection the Sub Registrar had already submitted his report. But, on facts, it was found that the petitioner did not participate in the proceeding because he received the notice belatedly. It was also contended before this court that reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner to participate in the proceeding under Section 82 of the Act. Having considered the same, a learned single Judge of this court, by order dated 06.01.2014, while disposing of the writ petition, issued a direction not to give effect to the report submitted by the Sub Registrar and with a further direction as follows:- "6. In view of the matter, the petitioner should be provided with a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, already examined. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, examined on behalf of the Society and also permit him to adduce both oral and documentary evidence. The report already drawn, on the basis of the ex parte enquiry need not be given effect to. 7. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, examined on behalf of the Society and also permit him to adduce both oral and documentary evidence. The report already drawn, on the basis of the ex parte enquiry need not be given effect to. 7. The Co-operative Sub-Registrar / Information Officer, Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ooty, 3rd respondent, shall send notices to the witnesses already examined, to be present on 20.01.2014, at 10.30 A.M., along with necessary records, so as to enable the petitioner to cross-examine them. The petitioner shall appear on the said date, i.e., 20.01.2014, and participate in the enquiry. He shall not seek for unnecessary adjournments, unless for genuine and bona fide cause. After completion of the cross-examination, the petitioner shall produce his oral and documentary evidence, as expeditiously as possible. The enquiry shall be completed , within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 3. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation seeking certain documents. The Sub Registrar issued a notice to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings on 21.02.2014. On that day, as many as 30 witnesses were in attendance. But the petitioner was not prepared to cross examine the witnesses, since, according to him, copies of certain documents were not furnished. The proceeding was adjourned to 15.03.2014, during which, there were 23 witnesses in attendance. When the witnesses were tendered for cross examination, the petitioner refused to cross examine them. Therefore, the Sub Registrar proceeded with the inspection and submitted a report dated 20.03.2014. Based on the said report, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, initiated proceeding under Section 87 of the Act. Accordingly, issued a surcharge memorandum, under Section 87 of the Act, by the Deputy Registrar by his proceedings in Tha.Thee.02/2014 dated 06.05.2014. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner is now before this court with this wit petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 5. The following grounds have been mainly focused in this writ petition:- (i) The impugned proceeding has been initiated without affording reasonable opportunity as directed by this court in W.P.No.34265 of 2013 by order dated 06.01.2014. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 5. The following grounds have been mainly focused in this writ petition:- (i) The impugned proceeding has been initiated without affording reasonable opportunity as directed by this court in W.P.No.34265 of 2013 by order dated 06.01.2014. (ii) There is no criminal case pending against the petitioner in respect of the allegations made against him and as a matter of fact, the real culprits (as per the language used by the petitioner) are the Board of Directors and the Auditors and this fact had not been considered by the Deputy Registrar. (iii) Such proceeding under Section 87 of the Act cannot be either maintained or sustained unless the petitioner is heard in full or the procedures as contemplated in the Act and the Rules of the Co-op Societies were strictly adhered to. (iv) Factually, the allegations made against the petitioner are false. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of his arguments, submitted that the report submitted under Section 82 of the Act by the Sub Registrar is in flagrant violation of the provisions contained in Section 82 of the Act and the consequential directions issued by this court. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses during the course of proceedings under Section 82 of the Act. 7. At the outset, I should say that this contention is untenable and the same is contrary to the express provision contained in Section 82 of the Act. To appreciate this contention of the learned counsel, it is worthwhile to have a quick look into Sections 80, 81, 82, 83 and 87 of the Act. Section 80 of the Act speaks of audit to be conducted by the Registrar of the Societies. Section 81 of the Act deals with an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society or any alleged misappropriation, fraudulent retention of any money or property, breach of trust, corrupt practice, or mismanagement in relation to that society or into any particular aspect of the working of that society. Section 82 speaks of inspection and investigation. Section 82 speaks of inspection and investigation. The language used in Section 82 will clearly indicate that it materially differs from Section 81 inasmuch as what is conducted under section 81 is an inquiry whereas what is conducted under Section 82 is not an inquiry. It is either a simple inspection into the affairs of the registered society in general or investigation into any alleged misappropriation, fraudulent retention of money or property, breach of trust, corrupt practice or mismanagement in relation to that society or into any particular aspect of the working of that society. While doing so, the officer who conducts inspection or investigation shall have all the powers of the Registrar when holding an inquiry under Section 81 of the Act. Section 83 of the Act speaks of inspection of books by financing bank. According to which, a financing bank may at any time, but shall at least once in every year, inspect through an officer or a member of its paid staff the books of every registered society which is indebted to it. 8. Now comes the crucial provision contained in Section 87 of the Act. A plain reading of Section 87 would make it abundantly clear that a surcharge proceeding under Section 87 shall be initiated on the basis of audit under Section 80 or inquiry under Section 81, or inspection or investigation under section 82, or inspection of books under Section 83 or winding up of the society. Therefore, it is crystal clear that for initiation of a surcharge proceeding under Section 87 of the Act, a report submitted under Section 80 or under Section 81 or under Section 82 or under Section 83 is the foundation. The actual adjudication happens only in the surcharge proceeding under Section 87 of the Act. That is the reason why, Section 87 makes it mandatory that before making an order in the surcharge proceeding a reasonable opportunity should be given to the persons concerned. It is only at this stage, witnesses are examined and documentary evidences are tendered and the persons against whom surcharge proceeding has been initiated is allowed to cross examine the witnesses if he so wishes and also to lead evidence on his side, both oral and documentary. It is only at this stage, witnesses are examined and documentary evidences are tendered and the persons against whom surcharge proceeding has been initiated is allowed to cross examine the witnesses if he so wishes and also to lead evidence on his side, both oral and documentary. Section 87(4) of the Act also makes it clear that the officer who conducts surcharge proceeding shall have all the powers of the civil court in respect of matters enumerated therein such as, summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examine him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of any document; reception of evidence on affidavits; requisitioning any public record from any court or office; and issuing commission for examining of witnesses. Any award passed under Section 87 of the Act is appealable to the Cooperative Tribunal under Section 152 of the Act. The award could be executed like a civil court decree under Chapter XVI of the Act. 9. From the above provisions of the Act, there can be no dispute that no adjudication takes place during an audit under Section 80 or inquiry under Section 81 or inspection or investigation under Section 82 and inspection of books by financing bank under section 83 of the Act. In other words, these proceedings are aimed to find out the facts and to submit a report to the authority concerned for initiation of proceedings. Mere report under any of these provisions will not result in any civil consequence. 10. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in S.V.K.Sahasramam V. The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies and others, 2008 (8) MLJ 231 , wherein, in para 9, the Division Bench has held as follows:- "9. It is nobody's case that in the instant case, the proceeding under Section 81 of the said Act amounts to an enquiry which can be called a departmental or disciplinary enquiry. It cannot be disputed that an enquiry under Section 81 of the said Act is an enquiry in public interest in order to find out whether the affairs of a co-operative society are conducted legally and whether there are financial improprieties in the matter of conduct of its affairs. Such an enquiry cannot be prima facie compared to an enquiry against any individual employee. Such an enquiry cannot be prima facie compared to an enquiry against any individual employee. It is obviously true that as a follow up action on such enquiry under Section 81, various other steps may be taken, viz. surcharge proceedings can be initiated under Section 87 and steps can be also taken for initiating criminal proceedings. In the instant case, both these steps have been taken." 11. In view of the above legal position, it is manifestly clear that affording opportunity to cross examine any person during the proceedings under these provisions is nowhere contemplated in the Act. Even principles of natural justice have got no role to play inasmuch as there is no decision taken under these provisions by means of an adjudication so as to result in any civil consequence against any person. As a matter of fact, it is like an investigation conducted by a police officer under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of a crime, during which, accused shall have no opportunity to cross examine any witness who is examined by the police officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is crystal clear that during the course of inspection or investigation under Section 82 of the Act, question of examining any witness in the presence of the person against whom proceeding has been initiated is unknown to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not allowed to cross examine any witness during inspection under Section 82 is untenable and the same deserves only to be rejected. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since there was an order from this court directing the Sub Registrar to permit the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses, the same should have been scrupulously followed. In my considered opinion, with great respect to the Hon'ble Judge who decided the matter, I am constrained to declare that the said view taken in W.P.No.34265 of 2013 is per incuriam as the same is contrary to the express provisions contained in Section 82 of the Act. Investigation or inspection is supposed to be a secret affair to find out the truth. The officer holding such investigation or inspection may summon any person to explain in respect of the affairs of the society. Investigation or inspection is supposed to be a secret affair to find out the truth. The officer holding such investigation or inspection may summon any person to explain in respect of the affairs of the society. Except to this extent, there is no enabling provision or mandatory provision in The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act or in the rules thereunder requiring the officer to hold inspection or investigation in the presence of any individual and to permit him to cross examine any person. It is needless to state that during such proceeding under Sections 80, 81, 82 and 83 of the Act no oath is administered on any witness. Therefore, question of cross examining any person by any adverse party does not at all arise. In view of such position, I am impelled to reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. In respect of all the other grounds raised in this writ petition, as extracted above, I have to state that these are all matters which are to be gone into during surcharge proceeding under Section 87 of the Act during which, the petitioner will be afforded sufficient opportunity. As I have already pointed out, what is challenged before this court is only a surcharge proceeding initiated under Section 87 of the Act. The petitioner has got alternative remedy to raise all his defences during such proceeding and to prove his innocence. Thus, I do not find any merit at all in this writ petition and the writ petition is highly misconceived. 14. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.