Madras High Court
P.Uma Devi vs The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 27 July, 2022
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.P.(MD)No.6273 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.6273 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)No.5492 of 2020
P.Uma Devi ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
2.Subramanian
(R.2 is impleaded vide Court order dated
01.07.2022 in W.M.P(MD)No.2239 of 2022
in W.P(MD)No.6273 of 2022) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in Dispute No. 2/2019 dated
29.2.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently permit the petitioner
to function as President and Administrative Board Member of O-1902
Alankulam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Alangulam
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.6273 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvelu
Senior Counsel for Mr.Subbiah
For Respondents : Mr.Senthil Ayyanar
Government Advocate for R.1
Mr.R.Mathava Selvam for R.2
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
2. The writ petitioner was elected as President of Q-1902 Alangulam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Alangulam, in the year 2019. One Parveen Raj gave a complaint that the writ petitioner herein is disqualified from being a member of the Board as well as the President of the Society since her brother-in-law is working as a Paid employee of the very same Society. Since no action was taken, he filed W.P(MD)No.25331 of 2019. Vide order dated 10.12.2019, a direction was given to the respondent herein for disposal of the said complaint. Pursuant to the said direction given by this Court, the respondent herein took up the complaint as C.D.No.2 of 2019. When the notice was ordered to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner entered appearance through the counsel but did not file any counter. In the meanwhile, Parvin Raj https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 W.P.(MD)No.6273 of 2020 chose to withdraw the complaint itself. Even though the complainant Parvin Raj took back the complaint, the respondent herein went ahead with the enquiry and passed the impugned order dated 29.02.2020 disqualifying the writ petitioner from the membership of the Board as well as the President of the Society. Questioning the same, this writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner took me through the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. He pointed out that it is only the Board which can take cognizance of the matter. Only in the event of failure of the part of the Board to do so, the Registrar can take up the issue. But the Registrar as per Section 34(6) of the Act will have to give opportunity to the writ petitioner. In this case, following the withdrawal of complaint by Parveen Raj, the matter should have been closed. If the respondent wanted to take any suo motu action, then the petitioner ought to have been specifically granted opportunity of hearing before passing any final order. Since the procedure has not been complied with the impugned order is bad in law.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that no case for interference has been made out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 W.P.(MD)No.6273 of 2020
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.
6. Section 34(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 states that no person shall be eligible for being elected or nominated as a member of the Board of any Registered Society, if he is in such near relation, as may be prescribed of a paid employee of such registered Society. Rule 63 of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 catalogues the near relations of the paid employee for the purpose of disqualification for membership of the Board. As many as 20 categories have been set out in the said rules. Rule 63(9) states that sister’s husband, son and daughter would fall within the scope of the expression “near relations”. In this case, the impugned order mentions that Thiru.Selvam is working as a Clerk in the subject Co-operative Society. His spouse, Mrs.Vasanthi is none other than the biological sibling / sister of the writ petitioner Mrs.Uma Devi. Therefore, on the very face of it, the disqualification set out in Section 34(1)(a) of the Act read with Rule 63(9) of the Rule is squarely attracted. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of the violation of principles of natural justice. Rule 34(3) of the Tamil Nadu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 W.P.(MD)No.6273 of 2020 Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 authorizes the Board of the Registered Society to take action regarding disqualification either suo motu or on an application made by any person. Section 34(6) of the Act is as follow:
“34.(6) Whenever the Registrar has come to know that any member of the board of any registered society was or has become disqualified under this section to hold office as such and that the board of the registered society either suo motu or on an application made by any person has failed to give a decision under sub-section (3) within one month from the date of incurring the disqualification, the Registrar may, at any time, by an order in writing decide the question and direct the removal of such member from the membership of the board, if he is found disqualified:
Provided that no member of the board shall be removed from such membership under this sub-section without such member and the board of which he is a member being given an opportunity of making his or its representation:
Provided further that pending such decision or removal, the member of the board shall be entitled to continue as such as if he is qualified or is not disqualified.”
7. In this case, the respondent had taken up the matter only pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P(MD)No.25331 of 2019. It is true that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 W.P.(MD)No.6273 of 2020 the original complainant did not want to pursue the matter. But the respondent herein after becoming aware of the facts could not have turned a Nelson’s eye. He rightly proceeded further in the matter. It is not a case of suo motu action. It is well known that certain matters cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution. For instance, a criminal revision case or a criminal appeal will not be dismissed for non-prosecution. Likewise, when a matter regarding disqualification had been brought to the notice of the Registrar, the inaction or the indifference of the original complainant cannot come in the way. In fact, the Registrar is under a statutory obligation to take the matter to its logical conclusion. In this case, the writ petitioner was put on notice. She even entered appearance through counsel. The writ petitioner was probably labouring under the fond hope that since Parveen Raj has done an about-turn the Registrar also will forget the matter. It is gratifying to note that the respondent authority took the matter to its logical conclusion. It is not necessary that the Registrar should have given one more opportunity to the writ petitioner after he decided to pursue the matter even after Parveen Raj decided not to proceed further.
8. This is the case in which the theory of empty formality will come into play. I wanted to know if the factual aspects projected in the impugned order are true or not.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 W.P.(MD)No.6273 of 2020
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to deny that Selvam who is a paid employee of the Society concerned is very much the brother-in-law of the writ petitioner. The impugned order has been rightly passed and no case is made out for interference.
10. This writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
27.07.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
Note: Issue order copy on 16.08.2022.
To
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 W.P.(MD)No.6273 of 2020 x G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
mga W.P.(MD)No.6273 of 2020 27.07.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8