Madras High Court
M. Mokkaiyan, President, Vaigai Dam ... vs The Assistant Director, Fisheries ... on 5 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)2MLJ80
ORDER S.S. Subramani, J.
1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 4197/E/98, dated 2.12.1998 and quash the same and pass such further orders.
2. Petitioner is the President of Vaigai Dam Fishermen Co-operative Society, Periakulam Taluk, Theni District.
3. First respondent had issued a notice to petitioner on 2.12.1998 to consider no confidence motion against petitioner. In that notice, petitioner has been informed that special meeting will be held on 18.12.1998 and he received a requisition from six members of the Board out of seven members. Said notice is challenged in this writ petition as one without jurisdiction.
4. It is the case of petitioner that none of members of Board here made request to him to convene meeting and so long as he has not been given notice, a requisition to first respondent for the first time will not give him jurisdiction to exercise powers under Co-operative Societies Act. Petitioner wanted to quash the impugned notice.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by first respondent it is admitted that six executive members sent a petition to him to convene a meeting to pass no confidence motion against petitioner. There was also another petition on 30.11.1998 signed by six executive members addressed to first respondent for removal of petitioner on the same ground. It is said that in view of requisition submitted by six members, first respondent informed petitioner by communication dated 2.12.1998 for convening a meeting on 18.12.1998 and the same is within his powers. It is said that he had exercised powers under Section 33(15) of the Act.
6. It is also said that when writ petition was moved, there was an interim order permitting respondent to convene meeting and also take decision, but not to implement the same. It is stated that petitioner was voted out, but the decision was not implemented till date, It prayed for dismissal of writ petition.
7. Before going into the question of law, it is only proper to extract the contents of notice, which is challenged in this writ petition, The same read, thus,
8. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit it is said thus, "With regard to para. 12 of the affidavit, I submit that all the 6 executive committee members have submitted a representation both on 23.11.1998 and 30.11.1998 expressing no confidence upon the President with the 1st respondent calling for convening a meeting. Therefore, under Section 33(15) of the Act, the 1st respondent called for a meeting on 18.12.1998 wherein 6 of them charged the petitioner against improper conduct of executive committee meeting and all of them decided and expressed no confidence motion against the petitioner."
9. It is clear from the notice issued to petitioner as well as paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit that action is taken under Section 33(15) of Co-operative Societies Act. It is admitted by both sides that petitioner as well as authorities are governed by the provisions of the Act and they will have to exercise their powers only under this Act. If power is given under this Act, the same also will have to be exercised only on satisfying conditions provided under the section.
10. Section 33(14) and (15) are relevant for our purpose and the same is extracted below:
Section 33(14) the Managing Director in consultation with the President or in his absence the Vice-President of the Board or where there is no Managing Director, the President of such Board, may, at any time, call a special meeting of the board and shall call such a meeting within fifteen days of a requisition in that behalf from-
(i) not less than one-third of the members of the board; or
(ii) the board of the financing bank to which such registered society is indebted; or
(iii) any other registered society of such class as may be prescribed for the purpose; or
(iv) the Registrar, for which a notice of three clear days Shall be given to the members of the board.
(b) The requisition referred to in Clause (a) shall be in writing and shall specify the subjects that shall be placed for consideration at such requisitioned meeting.
(15) If the Managing Director or the President, as the case may be, fails to call a meeting in accordance with a requisition under Clause (a) of Sub-section (14), the Registrar shall, if he is satisfied that there are sufficient and valid reasons to convene the board meeting, call the meeting himself and order that the expenses incurred in convening the meeting shall be paid out of the funds of the society.
11. A reading of these two sections show that Registrar will get power to convene a meeting only in case President fails to convene a meeting in accordance with requisition, under Clause (a) of Sub-section (14). Under Sub-section (14), a request has to be made to the Managing Director or President for holding special meeting. Section does not empower Registrar even to receive requisition directly from members. Only when requisition is made by members to the President and when he fails to convene special meeting within 15 days, Registrar gets power under Sub-section (15).
12. As stated earlier, it is statutory power that is being exercised by Registrar, If statute require a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner and not at all,
13. In Ramachandra v. Govind , in paragraph 25, their Lordships held thus, A century ago, in Taylor v. Taylor (1875)1 Ch.D. 426, Jessel, M.R. adopted the rule that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This rule has stood the test of time, It was applied by the Privy Council, in Nazir Ahmed, v. Emperor and later by this Court in several cases, Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. , Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan to a Magistrate making a record under Sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. This Rule squarely applies "where, indeed, the whole aim and object of the legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other. Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn. pp.362-363.
14. The same Principles was followed in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi . In paragraph 34 of the judgment, their Lordships reiterated that When a statute provide for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that way only.
15. In view of these decision, it is to be held that power of Registrar to convene a meeting will arise only if requisition is made to President, i.e., petitioner in this case, for convening special meeting and only if he fails to do so that jurisdiction could be exercised. In this case, even according to counter affidavit, no request was made to President to convene a meeting. Registrar by himself under Sub-section (15) cannot convene meeting.
16. In the result, the impugned notice is quashed. Once notice is quashed, it follows that subsequent meeting held on the basis of requisition is also declared as invalid.
17. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No. 30114 of 1998 is closed.