Madras High Court
Murugan vs Registrar Of Co-Operative on 31 January, 2012
Author: R.Sudhakar
Bench: R.Sudhakar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31.1.2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No. 15448 of 2002 ....... 1. Murugan 2. P. Mayileram Perumal 3. S. Muthusamy 4. R. Dhamotharan 5. S. Ravindran 6. S. Alagirisamy 7. R. Venkatesan 8. S. Joseph Udhayakumar 9. R. Sithavan 10. K. Ramasubbu 11. S. Subramanian 12. N. Gandhimathinathan 13. P. Ayyappan 14. K. Jesudasan 15. A. Ramamoorthy 16. N. Diravidamani 17. I. Senthil Rajan 18. S. Ganesan 19. S. Ramachandran 20. R. Seenivasan 21. N. Kavitha 22. V.P.Kanagavel 23. R. Rengaraj ..Petitioners Vs. 1. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai.10. 2.Joint Director of Co-operative Audits, Madurai. 3. The Tirunelveli District Central Co-operative Bank rep. By its General Manager, Vannarapet, Tirunelveli.3. (R3 impleaded as per order dated 16.8.2002 in WP.MP.No.44324 /2002) ..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in RC.32321/95/CBP-4, dated 29.3.2002 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr. A. Sankarasubramaniyam For Respondents : Mr. Lakshminarayanan Govt. Advocate ORDER
This writ petition is filed to call for the records of the first respondent in RC.32321/95/CBP-4, dated 29.3.2002 and quash the same.
2. 23 employees of newly formed Tuticorin Co-operative Bank have filed the writ petition challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in RC No.32321/95, dated 29.3.2002 which is consequent to the bifurcation proceedings dated 5.6.1992. In view of the bifurcation proceedings, several rounds of discussions have been held by the various officials of Tuticorin District Central Co-operative Bank and Tirunelveli Central Co-operative Bank and the officers of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Modalities of bifurcation were discussed and the last of the discussion concluded by way of the impugned proceedings whereby the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies recommended a method of settlement of bifurcation of accounts and that is challenged by the employees.
3. The writ petition was admitted and after notice, Tirunelveli District Central Co-operative Bank got impleaded as R3 by an order of this dated 16.8.2002, in which, it has been specifically pleaded that as per the terms of the bifurcation settlement, the amount payable by Tuticorin Central Co-operative Bank has been paid. The learned counsel for the third respondent refers to paragraphs 34 to 36 of the affidavit filed by the third respondent and states that the issue has already peen resolved by way of settlement consequent to the impugned proceedings.
4. Paragraphs 34 to 36 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-
" (34) Accordingly, the Tuticorin District CCB remitted Rs.1crore to Tirunelveli District Central Co-operative Bank on 10.4.2002 towards settlement of Bifurcation account. Now against this, the 23 employees working in the Tuticorin District Central Co-operative Bank preferred a single writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.
(35) Even after having filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Court the Thoothukudi DCCB has remitted a sum of Rs.25 lakhs towards the settlement of our claims on 13.6.2002.
(36) It is submitted that the respondents 1 to 23 do not have any locus standi to file the above writ petition since none of their rights has been affected. Even on merits, the order does not suffer from any illegality. It has to be issued on the basis of elaborate exercise that was undertaken by the constitution of a Committee and in the absence of any perverse decision of any illegality in either of the decision making process or the decision itself, this Hon'ble Court would not normally entertain a writ petition against the same".
5. In any event, it was pleaded that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition as none of the petitioners are affected persons. The said plea is justified as the writ petitioners are the employees of the society and they cannot have any grievance on bifurcation as their service rights are in no way affected. There is no material to establish as to how the petitioners' rights have been affected forcing them to file the present writ petition. In any event, since the bifurcation order is not under challenge, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the consequential proceedings.
6. In the result, finding no merits, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
ra To
1. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai.10.
2. Joint Director of Co-operative Audits, Madurai.
3. The Tirunelveli District Central Co-operative Bank rep. By its General Manager, Vannarapet, Tirunelveli 3