Madras High Court
E.S.Sundara Mahalingam ... ... vs The Special Tribunal For on 26 August, 2021
Rev. Appln. No.44 of 2021
in W.P.No.12727 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 26.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
Rev. Appln. No.44 of 2021
in W.P.No.12727 of 2003
E.S.Sundara Mahalingam ... Review Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Special Tribunal for
Co-operative Cases (District Judge),
Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Cheramadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Administrator,
Valliyur Co-operative Primary Agricultural
and Rural Development Bank Ltd.,
D.R.L. (E) II, Panagudi,
Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 10 r/w 114 of
Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 15.02.2019 made in
W.P.No.12727 of 2003, by setting aside the same and further give liberty
to the petitioner to file Civil Revision Petition under 227 of the
Constitution of India.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev. Appln. No.44 of 2021
in W.P.No.12727 of 2003
For Review Petitioner : Mr.R.Sreedhar
For Respondents : R1- Tribunal
Mr.K.Tippusulthan for R2
Government Advocate
Mr.N.Om Prakash for R3
ORDER
Heard Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the review petitioner,
Mr.K.Tippusulthan, learned Government Advocate for the second
respondent and Mr.N.Om Prakash, learned counsel for the third
respondent.
2.When the petitioner herein had challenge the order of the Special
Tribunal for Co-operative Societies in W.P.No.12727 of 2003, this Court
had, order dated 15.02.2019, dismissed the writ petition as against which,
the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court in W.A.No.4021 of 2019. Accordingly, when the writ
appeal was taken up for hearing, the Hon'ble Division Bench order dated
22.11.2019, had observed that as against the order of the Tribunal, the
option available to the petitioner is only to challenge the same before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev. Appln. No.44 of 2021
in W.P.No.12727 of 2003
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that the present
writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. With this
observation, the Hon'ble Division Bench had granted liberty to the
petitioner to move a review application before me in the light of the
observation made in the relevant portions of the order of the Hon'ble
Division Bench dated 22.11.2019, which reads as follows:
“5.Applying the ratio of the decisions referred to
above, in the present case, there is no doubt that the order
was passed by the Special Tribunal Chaired by the learned
District Judge and therefore, a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution could not have been maintained. The writ
petition has, however, been dismissed. Thus, had the writ
petition been allowed, an appeal would have been preferred
and we could have set aside the judgment following the ratio
as explained in the case of Vijayanand Puri (supra). But the
fact remains that the decision that was under challenge
before the learned Single Judge was admittedly that of a
Tribunal. The jurisdiction of this Court therefore which could
be exercised was under Article 227 of the Constitution and
the petition could have been treated to be that under Article
227 only. But the aforesaid issue does not appear to have
been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. Since we are of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev. Appln. No.44 of 2021
in W.P.No.12727 of 2003
the opinion on the facts of this case that the writ petition filed
under any caption whatsoever, was against the order of the
Tribunal, it is the learned Single Judge who could and should
have treated the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
6.Having said so, the present writ appeal against the
jurisdiction exercised under Article 227 would not be
maintainable. In the light of the above, we do hold that this
appeal is not maintainable, but at the same time, we grant
liberty to the appellant to move a Review Application before
the learned Single Judge for considering the case in the light
of what has been stated herein above.”
3.The limited scope of the present review application is to grant
liberty to the petitioner in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble
Division Bench, as extracted above. Accordingly, the petitioner is
granted liberty to file a review application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the judgment and decree of the Special
Tribunal for the Co-operative Societies dated 20.02.2003 passed in
C.M.A. (CS) No.109 of 1999, within a period of 30 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev. Appln. No.44 of 2021
in W.P.No.12727 of 2003
4.Hence, the Review Application stands closed. No costs.
26.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
pam
To
1.The Special Tribunal for
Co-operative Cases (District Judge),
Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Cheramadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Administrator,
Valliyur Co-operative Primary Agricultural
and Rural Development Bank Ltd.,
D.R.L. (E) II, Panagudi,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev. Appln. No.44 of 2021
in W.P.No.12727 of 2003
M.S.RAMESH, J.
pam
Rev. Appln. No.44 of 2021
in W.P.No.12727 of 2003
26.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
