Madras High Court
R.Anandalingam vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 27 February, 2014
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:27.02.2014
Coram
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.P.No.19114 of 2012
R.Anandalingam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Vellore Zone, Vellore.
2.Gudiyatham Co-operative Urban Bank Limited,
Rep. By its Special Officer,
Veerabhadra Mastry Street,
Dharmapet, Gudiyatham. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the concerned records from the 1st Respondent, quash the order of the 1st Respondent dated 25.6.2012 bearing Na.Ka.No.4817/2012 A2 and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to receive the Revision Petition of the Petitioner dated 6.6.2012 preferred under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and adjudicate the same on its merits and in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondents : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The Petitioner has focussed the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court in calling for the concerned records from the 1st Respondent, quash the order of the 1st Respondent dated 25.06.2012 bearing Na.Ka.No.4817/2012 A2 and consequently, direct the 1st Respondent to receive the Revision Petition of the Petitioner dated 06.06.2012 preferred under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and adjudicate the same on its merits and in accordance with law.
2.According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner projected Revision Petition under Section 153 before the 1st Respondent/Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vellore and the 1st Respondent on 25.06.2012 bearing Na.Ka.No.4817/2012 A2 has passed the impugned order stating that the Revision Petition was not filed by the Petitioner within 90 days time as specified under Section 153(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Added further, the 1st Respondent had proceeded to state that the Petitioner had projected the Revision Petition nearly after 12 years and consequently had not taken the Revision Petition on file and returned the same.
3.The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Revision Petition projected by the Petitioner under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act ought to have been taken on file by the 1st Respondent and per contra, the same should not have been returned because of the simple reason that this Court, in the decision N.P.Palanisamy V. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary to Government, Food & Co-operation Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, 2012 (4) CTC 257, in paragraph 32, had clearly observed as follows:
"32.Nextly, the Learned Counsel would submit that assuming that what is contained in Section 153(1) of the Act is only directory, even then, such Revision should be filed within a reasonable time. There can be no controversy over this legal proposition. In the case on hand, according to the Learned Counsel, the Revision was filed after two years of the impugned order and therefore, atleast on facts, it should be held that the Revisional Authority was right in rejecting the Revision. I cannot have any second opinion that a Revision is to be filed within a reasonable time. What is reasonable depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the same cannot be put in any strait-jacket formula."
4.In effect, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that it is always open to the 1st Respondent to take the Revision Petition on file and to go into the aspect of delay by taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case of the Petitioner and the term 'reasonable time' cannot be imprisoned in a strait jacket formula.
5.To put it differently, the plea of the Petitioner is that the time limit adumbrated under Section 153(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Act, viz., filing of Revision within 90 days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant are only directory in nature. Per contra, they are not mandatory in character.
6.At this juncture, this Court makes a useful reference to Section 153(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 which run as under:
"153.Revision.- (1) The Registrar may of his own motion or on application, call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him or of the board or any officer of a registered society or of the competent authority constituted under sub-section (3) of Section 75 and the Government may, of their own motion or on application, call for and examine the record of the Registrar, in respect of any proceedings under this Act or the rules or the by-laws not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal to the Tribunal is provided by sub-section (1) of Section 152 to satisfy himself or themselves as to the regularity of such proceedings, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein; and if, in any case, it appears to the Registrar or the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he or they may pass orders accordingly;
Provided that every application to the Registrar or the Government for the exercise of the powers under this Section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant.
(2)No order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representations."
7.Also that, the Rule 169 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 speaks of 'Procedure regarding appeals other than those to Co-operative Tribunal and application for revision'. In fact, Rule 169(5) speaks as follows:
"169.(5) On receipt of the appeal or the application for revision, the appellate or revising authority shall, as soon as possible, examine it and ensure that -
(a) the person presenting the appeal or the application has the locus standi to do so;
(b) it is made within the specified time limit in the case of an appeal, or is accompanied by a petition, referred to in sub-rule (4), as the case may be; and
(c) it conforms to all the provisions of the Act and these rules."
8.In this connection, this Court points out the decision M.Mathias V. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Chennai 600 009 and others, (2007) 5 MLJ 866, it is observed as follows:
"When the order obtained by the petitioner was advantageous to him, it cannot be reversed by the reviewing authority without notice the petitioner. When a statutory authority exercises his function under a law, no prejudicial order can be passed without notice to the person concerned."
9.On an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also this Court, taking note of the attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in an integral manner, is of the considered view that the 1st Respondent had dismissed the Revision Petition at the threshold by passing the impugned order on 25.06.2012 based on the simple ground that the same was not filed within the prescribed time limit as per the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. At this stage, a perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no indication in the said order that the Petitioner was provided with an opportunity to make any representation or project his case in regard to the aspect of delay. In fact, the impugned order is conspicuously silent in this regard.
10.On a careful consideration of the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and also this Court, on going through the ingredients of Section 153(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, but opines that the 1st Respondent ought to have taken the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner (even though purported to have been filed beyond the specified period of 90 days, as projected on the side of the Respondents) on file and assigned the necessary number thereto and also by providing an opportunity to him could have passed a reasoned order on merits (by dealing with the aspect of delay in question). However, in the present case on hand, such a recourse was not resorted to by the 1st Respondent while passing the impugned order and resultantly the said order bristles with the patent infirmity and illegality in the eye of law. As such, this Court, to meet the ends of Justice, interferes with the impugned order and sets aside the same to prevent miscarriage of Justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds.
11.In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 25.06.2012 is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned by this Court in this Writ Petition. The 1st Respondent is directed to take the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner to take on file and assign number to it and then to proceed with the hearing of the said Revision Petition for the purpose of comprehensive and fuller adjudication of the matter [by providing necessary opportunities to the Petitioner] and to dispose of the same on merits in a fair, objective and dispassionate manner [by meeting out the aspect of delay in issue and also by adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice] and further directed to pass a qualitative and quantitative reasoned, speaking order on merits, specifying the outline of process of reasoning [uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in this Writ Petition], and in the manner known to law and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Liberty is granted to both parties to raise all factual and legal pleas before the 1st Respondent/Authority and the 1st Respondent /Authority is to provide reasonable/adequate opportunities to them. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
27.02.2014 Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes /No Sgl M.VENUGOPAL,J.
Sgl To
1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai 600 003.
W.P.No.19114 of 201227.02.2014