Madras High Court
M.S.Pandian vs The Secretary To Government on 23 August, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1602 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.A.(MD) No.1602 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6825 of 2021
M.S.Pandian .. Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Co-operative Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
N.V.Natarajan Maligai,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010.
3.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Thiruparankundram,
Pasumpon Nagar,
Madurai – 625 003.
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1602 of 2021
4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Madurai Circle,
Madurai.
5.Dr.A.Jeeva,
Joint Registrar of Co-op Societies/
Managing Director,
Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank,
North Veli Street,
Madurai – 625 001.
6.The Secretary,
M.M.3258, B.B.Kulam Co-operative Stores,
Door No.19/12 R.S.Naidu Street,
Sellur,
Madurai – 625 002. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the
order dated 09.08.2021, passed in W.P.(MD) No.13228 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
for Mr.Karthikeyan Anbazhagan
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Senior Counsel for State Govt.,
for Mr.P.Thilak Kumar,
Standing Counsel for Government
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1602 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice]
The writ petitioner is in appeal against an order of August 9, 2021, by
which his challenge to a show-cause notice was repelled and the writ
petitioner was asked to respond to the relevant notice.
2.In principle, the order impugned cannot be faulted. Ordinarily, a
writ court is not excited to receive a petition challenging a show-cause
notice since the writ petitioner has a chance to indicate his defence to the
authority which had issued the notice and the relevant authority is called
thereupon to decide on the matters in issue. Authoritative judicial
pronouncements instruct that unless a show-cause notice reveals gross
unreasonableness or mala fides on the face of it or the same has been issued
without jurisdiction, courts would be slow in receiving challenges to the
same. Indeed, a challenge to a show-cause notice is treated at par with a
challenge to the first information report or criminal complaint and a
challenge akin to one made under Order VII Rule 11 of the code. Unless
the notice is clearly demurrable the writ court would allow the action to be
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1602 of 2021
played out before the appropriate authority in the relevant forum before
seeking to intervene.
3.In the present case, the writ petitioner says that it was only upon the
writ petitioner coming to Court with a previous petition that the authorities
jumped into action against the petitioner on the basis of a stale complaint.
The writ petitioner is the President of a co-operative bank. The petitioner
seeks to contest the post for Director of Stores. The Respondent claims that
he has the credentials to be anointed to the post. The previous petition
brought by the respondent complained of the second respondent to the said
writ petition, W.P.(MD)No. 13037 of 2021, seeking to prevent the appellant
herein from discharging his duties. The grievance of the appellant in such
previous petition was that complaints made against the second respondent to
the said petition had not been taken up by the appropriate authorities. Such
Writ Petition was disposed of by an order of June 23, 2021, in effect calling
upon the superior authorities to consider the petitioner's complaint against
the second respondent to the petition.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1602 of 2021
4.The appellant now asserts not only did the appropriate authorities
not take any action against the second respondent to the earlier petition,
they issued the impugned show-cause notice dated July 23, 2021 by relying
on a complaint that had been lying for more than a year. The petitioner
alleges mala fides on the part of the respondent authorities and such
authorities taking political and other extraneous considerations into account
in seeking to act against the petitioner herein. In particular, it is the
petitioner's case that the petitioner has not lost any qualification that would
expose the petitioner to be proceeded against in terms of Section 23(2)(g) of
the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The petitioner has also
drawn the court's attention to the classification and categorisation of
societies under Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules,
1988 and maintains that the petitioner, who is associated with rural stores in
the consumer society, cannot be said to be disqualified under the relevant
provision.
5.The petitioner also seeks to suggest that the impugned notice would
reveal that the relevant authority has made up its mind and the act of
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1602 of 2021
adjudication, so to say, upon the petitioner issuing a reply would only be an
empty and idle formality.
6.In the impugned order dated August 9, 2021 the single bench took
relevant considerations into account and found that no case was made out
that the show-cause notice had been issued without jurisdiction or that the
notice betrayed a close mind on the part of the person who had issued the
notice. Since appropriate reasons have been indicated and the matter was
considered in a proper perspective, the order impugned does not call for any
interference.
7.However, to the extent that it is the petitioner's underlying
submission that it is only because of the recent change of the political
dispensation at the helm of the State that has resulted in a chain reaction of
actions against persons perceived not to subscribe to the views of the
present ruling party, the order that may be passed upon the petitioner's reply
to the show-cause notice being received will not be given effect to for a
period of seven days, if it is adverse to the petitioner. However, the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1602 of 2021
continuation of the embargo will be subject to the discretion of the forum
before which the petitioner questions the decision.
8.W.A.(MD)No.1602 of 2021 is disposed of with the marginal
modification as indicated above.
9.Nothing in this order or in the order passed by the single bench will
be held against either the petitioner or the respondent authorities herein for
the purpose of assessing the petitioner's reply to the impugned show-cause
notice. The petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice must be issued within
a fortnight from date.
10.There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.(MD)No.
6825 of 2021 is closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (M.D., J.)
23.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
MR
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1602 of 2021
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1602 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Co-operative Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
N.V.Natarajan Maligai,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010.
3.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Thiruparankundram,
Pasumpon Nagar,
Madurai – 625 003.
4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Madurai Circle,
Madurai.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1602 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
MR
W.A.(MD) No.1602 of 2021
23.08.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
