Madras High Court
R.Moorthi 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.28866 of 2011
R.Moorthi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Thiruvannamalai Region,
Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Special Officer,
V.T.743 Tiruvannamalai District Police Employees,
Coop. Thrift and Credit Society,
O/o. District Superintendent of Police,
Vengikal, Tiruvnnamalai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records from the 1st Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.2690/2011 Sa.Pa., dated 21.03.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to dispose the Review Application on merits by entertaining the review application filed by the Petitioner on 02.03.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
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 entire records from the 1st Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.2690/2011 Sa.Pa., dated 21.03.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to dispose of the Review Application on merits by entertaining the Review Application filed by the Petitioner on 02.03.2011.
2.According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner projected Review Petition before the 1st Respondent/Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai District under Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the same was dismissed assigning reason to the effect that it was not filed within the time limit prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988.
3.The Primordial contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Review Petition filed by the Petitioner, which is impugned in the Writ Petition was dismissed by the 1st Respondent without providing opportunity to him.
4.Advancing his arguments, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there is no provision stipulated under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 for condoning the delay in filing the Review Petition under Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and therefore, the impugned order dated 21.03.2011 passed by the 1st Respondent cannot stand a moment scrutiny in the eye of law.
5.At this juncture, this Court makes a useful reference to Section 154(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 which run as under:
154. Review.- (1) The appellant or the applicant for revision or the respondent may apply for the review of any order passed under section 152 or section 153 on the basis of the discovery of new and important facts which, after the exercise of due diligence, were not then within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order was made or on the basis of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason:
Provided that no application for review shall be preferred more than once in respect of the same order. (2) Every application for review shall be preferred within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.
6.Also that, the Rule 170 (1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 speaks of 'Application for Review' enjoin thus:
"170. Application for review.- (1) The time within which an application for review may be preferred under sub-section (1) of section 154 shall be ninety days from the date of receipt by the applicant for review of the order to which the application relates.
(2) The application shall be in the form of a memorandum setting forth concisely and under distinct heads the discovery of new and important facts which, after the exercise of due diligence, were not then within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced when the order was made or the mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record or other good and sufficient reasons on the basis of which review is sought. It shall be accompanied by a memorandum of evidence."
7.Further, Rule 170(5) speaks as follows:
"170. (5) The application shall, so far as it may be necessary, be disposed of by the Co-operative Tribunal or Registrar or the Government in such manner as it or they may deem fit provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representations."
8.In this connection, this Court points out the decision in 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 contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner 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 Review Petition at the threshold by passing the impugned order on 21.03.2011 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.That apart, although Rule 170 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988, (1) refers to filing of Review under sub-Section (1) of Section 154 of the Act within ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, yet, this Court is of the considered view that the 1st Respondent should have taken the Review Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 154 of the Act on file and assigned a relevant 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 21.03.2011 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 Review Petition filed by the Petitioner to take on file and assign number to it and then to proceed with the hearing of the said Review 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 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 To
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvannamalai Region, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Special Officer, V.T.743 Tiruvannamalai District Police Employees, Coop. Thrift and Credit Society, O/o. District Superintendent of Police, Vengikal, Tiruvnnamalai District.
M.VENUGOPAL,J.
Sgl W.P.No.28866 of 2011- 27.02.2014