Madras High Court
D.Krishnamoorthy vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 1 June, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 06.08.2021
PRONOUNCING ORDERS ON : 10.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.Nos.12476 and 12894 of 2021
and
WMP Nos.13701, 13257 and 14245 of 2021
D.Krishnamoorthy ...Petitioner
in W.P.No.12476 of 2019
S.R.Ravi ...Petitioner
in W.P.No.12894 of 2019
.Vs.
1.The Registrar of Co-operative Society
(Housing),
No.48, Rithdren Road,
Vepery,
Chennai 600 007.
2.The Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Society (Housing),
No.18, Ramanathan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
..Respondents
in Both WPs
http://www.judis.nic.in
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the
records of the first respondent dated 01.06.2021 made in
Na.Ka.No.3173/2021/E1 issued as against the petitioner and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
(in Both WPs) Senior Counsel
for Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram
For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran
(in Both WPs) Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners are the President and the Vice-President of
the Perambur Cooperative Building Society Ltd. These writ petitions
assail the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 01.06.2021
suspending the petitioners, in exercise of powers under Section 76-A of
the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Act”), for a period of 6 months pending an inquiry under Section
81 of the said Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2.The petitioners were elected as the President and Vice
President, respectively, during the elections conducted in 2018 for a
period of 5 years. The Joint Registrar (Inspection Cell) gave a report
dated 20.05.2021to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies
(Housing), the 2nd Respondent herein, to the effect that an inspection was
conducted in the Society and certain serious violations were identified
during inspection. Consequently, a recommendation was made to conduct
an inquiry under Section 81 of the Act. Acting on this report, an inquiry
was ordered by the 2nd Respondent through proceedings dt. 24.05.2021
under Section 81 of the Act and a senior inspector was appointed as the
inquiry officer. Pending the inquiry, the 2nd Respondent sent a proposal
to the 1st Respondent to suspend the petitioners in the interest of the
Society since there was prima facie evidence involving criminal
misconduct and serious violations. The 1st Respondent on receipt of
recommendations of the 2nd Respondent issued the impugned
proceedings dt. 01.06.2021 suspending the Petitioners for 6 months from
01.06.2021, in exercise of powers under Section 76-A of the Act. These
writ petitions assail the aforesaid orders dated 01.06.2021.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3.The Respondents have filed a counter affidavit and an
additional counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that on the
inspection conducted by the Joint Registrar (Inspection Cell), it was
found that the Board of Management, without getting any administrative
sanction and without following the procedure had allotted 0.18 cents of
vacant land belonging to the society in favor of one Mr. Murugan by
entering into a lease agreement with him on 24.09.2020. A further
allegation made in the counter affidavit is that the property was leased for
a period of 11 years and the vacant site was handed over to the said Mr.
Murugan for a paltry lease amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore,
according to the Respondents, a property with a market value of more
than Rs.5 crores has been let out for a monthly rent of Rs.25,000and this
property is situated at a prime locality. By virtue of this lease deed, the
lessee has been permitted to put up permanent structures and the society
is incurring a huge loss. On such serious violations being identified at the
time of inspection, an inquiry has been ordered under Section 81 of the
Act and an inquiry officer has also been appointed. Since the respondents
found prima facie material pointing to violation of rules, breach of trust
and serious irregularities in allotment of land, it was decided to place the
http://www.judis.nic.in
petitioners under suspension pending Section 81 inquiry.
4.Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Petitioners attacked the impugned proceedings
of the 1st Respondent on the ground that it is tainted with malafides, it
has been done with a political vendetta and that the procedure
contemplated under Section 76-A of the Act has not been strictly
followed. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the subject property
had been encroached by anti-social elements and a lot of effort was taken
to remove the encroachers with the help of the police. Thereafter, to
safeguard the property and to prevent any further encroachment, a
compound wall was constructed around the property. During 2015-16,
the same was intimated to the concerned authorities and a resolution was
also passed by the society to rent out the premises to both prevent any
future encroachments and to augment the income of the Society. The
learned Senior Counsel submitted that the resolutions that were passed by
the Society on 07.09.2018 were also placed before the 1 st Respondent on
12.09.2018 seeking approval to lease out the property. Thereafter, the
Society entered into a lease agreement dt. 24.09.2020 and this agreement
http://www.judis.nic.in
was also registered as Doc No. 2661 of 2020. The learned Senior Counsel
placed reliance upon Clause 11 of the lease deed and submitted that the
lease was granted to safeguard the property from encroachments and a
reasonable rent was fixed to earn some income for the Society.
5.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that after the
assembly elections, the new government took charge during the first week
of June 2021 and immediately thereafter the 1st Respondent has
proceeded to suspend the Petitioners under the guise of a pending inquiry
under Section 81 of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that
the Petitioners were very much present in the Society till the end of May
2021 and there was no inspection conducted by any authority on
24.05.2021 as claimed by the Respondents. The action has been taken in
a hasty manner for purely political considerations and it is colorable
exercise of power on the part of the 1st Respondent. The learned Senior
Counsel submitted that the 1st Respondent was expected to assign
reasons while coming to an opinion to suspend the office bearers and
there is nothing in the impugned order to show that the 1 st Respondent
http://www.judis.nic.in
has arrived at an opinion based on objective considerations. The learned
Senior Counsel by pointing out Rule 104(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”)
submitted that the Registrar is mandated to examine whether there is any
need to hold an inquiry under Section 81 of the Act and in the present
case, the 2nd Respondent has hastened through the process of ordering
for an inquiry and therefore, the very inquiry ordered under Section 81 of
the Act is unsustainable.
6.Per contra, the learned government counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondents submitted that the 2nd Respondent has been
delegated the power to order for an inquiry under Section 81 of the Act
by virtue of G.O. No. 31, dt. 08.01.1990. It was further submitted that
the report of the Joint Registrar (Inspection Cell) pointed out serious
irregularities and violations which required an immediate inquiry under
Section 81 of the Act and accordingly, an inquiry was ordered on
24.05.2021. Pending this inquiry, the 1st Respondent has exercised
powers under Section 76-A of the Act and suspended the petitioners since
http://www.judis.nic.in
there was prima facie evidence against both the officer bearers of the
Society that they had committed breach of trust and other serious
irregularities in allotment of land. He contended that public interest
warranted placing the Petitioners under suspension to effectively conduct
the inquiry. The learned government counsel concluded his arguments by
submitting that all the procedures have been followed to order for an
inquiry under Section 81 of the Act and to consequently suspend the
Petitioners pending an inquiry as contemplated under Section 76-A of the
Act and that there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the same
7.This Court has carefully considered the aforesaid
submissions made on either side and examined the material on record.
8.Before going into the various submissions, it is imperative
to have a closer look into the scope of Section 76-A of the Act. This
exercise must be carried out at the threshold since this provision has been
invoked for the first time in this case and it is, therefore, necessary to
delineate its scope as this would have a major impact when this provision
is put into operation in future cases.
http://www.judis.nic.in
9.For better appreciation, Section 76-A of the Act, is
extracted hereunder:
“76-A. Suspension of President or Vice-President
of a registered society under certain
circumstances:—
(1) Where it is brought to the notice of the Registrar,
on a complaint or otherwise, that the President or
the Vice-President of a registered society has
committed or has been otherwise responsible for
misappropriation or breach of trust or gross
mismanagement of the aff airs of the registered
society or committed any off ence involving
criminal misconduct or moral turpitude and if, in
the opinion of the Registrar, there is a prima facie
evidence against the President or the Vice-
President and the suspension of the President or
the Vice-President is necessary in the interest of
such society or in the public interest, the Registrar
may, by order, place the President or the Vice-
President, under suspension for a period not
exceeding six months, pending inquiry under
section 81 or inspection or investigation under
section 82 or investigation into the offence
involving criminal misconduct or moral turpitude.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), where an action under section 36 has
http://www.judis.nic.in
been initiated against the President or the Vice-
President, the period of suspension may be
extended by the Registrar, from time to time, for
the reasons to be recorded in writing, for a further
period of six months or till final order is passed
under section 36, whichever is earlier.’’.
Section 76-A, which was inserted by the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 2020,
came into effect on 26.02.2020 when the amendment was published in
the Official Gazette. This provision has been curiously inserted in Chapter
VIII (Sections 73 to 79) of the Act which deals with “Paid officers and
servants of Society”. The President or Vice President of a registered
Society are elected office bearers and are not paid officers or servants of
the society who are appointed under Section 73 of the Act. The placement
of Section 76-A in Chapter VIII is, quite simply, bizarre since the power
to suspend an elected member is placed in a chapter that has nothing to
do with elected members at all. If the legislature had intended to treat
elected officers as being akin to paid servants such a classification would
fall foul of Article 14 since that would be tantamount to treating
unequal’s equally. This is, perhaps, another instance where the legislature
has unwittingly assented to a product of the “cut and paste syndrome”.
http://www.judis.nic.in
10.That Section 76-A is a “cut and paste job” is evident from
a perusal of Section 76 which deals with the suspension of a paid officer
or a servant of a society. Section 76(1)(a) of the Act runs as follows:
“76. Suspension of a paid Officer or
servant of society.__ (1) Where (a) in the course of
an audit under section 80 or an inquiry under
section 81 or an inspection or investigation under
section 82, or inspection of books under section
83, it is brought to the notice of the Registrar that
a paid officer or servant of a registered society
whether or not he is borne on a common cadre of
service has committed or has been otherwise
responsible for misappropriation, breach of trust
or other offences in relation to any registered
society and if, in the opinion of the Registrar there
is a “prima facie” evidence against such paid
officer or servant and the suspension of such
paid officer or servant is necessary in the interest
of any such society, or”
11.From a comparative reading of Section 76(1)(a) and
Section 76-A(1) it is evident that the language deployed is identical and
http://www.judis.nic.in
that the only difference is that in the former, ‘paid officer or servant of
society’ will be the persons suspended whereas in the latter it is the
President or the Vice President. The legislature appears to have been
completely oblivious to the fundamental principle that the power to
suspend a paid officer or servant flows from the contract of service or the
relevant rules that govern the master-servant relationship. The concept of
a master-servant relationship is wholly alien in the case of elected office
bearers since neither the State Government nor the Registrar or Sub-
Registrar are the masters or the employers nor are the elected President
and/or Vice President their paid servants or employees. By equating paid
servants with democratically elected office bearers,the legislature has
missed the wood for the trees by treating dissimilar groups similarly.
Section 76-A sticks out like a sore thumb and ought not to have been
incorporated under Chapter VIII of the Act.
12.The election of the members of the Board is a democratic
process which is undertaken by an Election Commission constituted
under Section 33-A of the Act. The entire process of election is set out in
Rule 52 of the Rules. A poll is held, and the members cast their votes and
http://www.judis.nic.in
elect the members of the Board. Consequently the office bearers also get
elected under Rule 53 of the Rules. Insofar as removal of an elected office
bearer is concerned, the same is specifically dealt with under Rule 62 of
the Rules which lays down the procedure for such removal. There is also
a provision for removal of elected members of the Board under Rule 61 of
the Rules. That apart there is also a specific provision under Section 88 of
the Act for the supersession of the Board under certain circumstances and
for appointment of an administrator to manage the affairs of the Society.
13.It is clear from the above that the scheme of the Act
envisages that the elected Board and the Office Bearers are dealt with in a
specific manner under the Act when it comes to their removal or
supersession. Consequently, if the legislature wanted to bring in the
concept of suspension of an elected officer bearer, pending inquiry under
Section 81 of the Act, such a provision ought not to have been
incorporated into Chapter VIII of the Act which deals with paid servants
and employees. It is for this reason that this Court is constrained to
observe that Section 76-A had the traits of a cut and paste legislation.
However, as the vires of this provision has not been called into question,
http://www.judis.nic.in
it is not necessary to dwell any further on this aspect.
14.Turning to the scope of Section 76-A, it may be noticed
that the exercise of power under the said provision is a two-step process.
The first step contemplates the placing of information before the Registrar
indicating that the President or the Vice President has committed or has
been otherwise responsible for misappropriation or breach of trust or
gross mismanagement of the affairs of the registered society or has
committed any offence involving criminal misconduct or moral turpitude.
The second stage is where the Registrar is required to form an opinion
(obviously based on the material placed before him in stage one) that
there is prima facie evidence against the said office bearers and that the
suspension of the officer bearers is necessary in the interest of such
society or in public interest. It is important to notice that a mere forming
of a prima facie case by the Registrar will not do. The jurisdictional fact
to trigger Section 76-A is not mere availability of prima facie material.
The Registrar is required to travel further and evaluate whether, based on
such material, the suspension of the President or Vice President is
necessary in public interest or in the larger interests of the society. The
http://www.judis.nic.in
reason for this is not far to seek. The object of suspension is to facilitate
easy collection of evidence in the investigation or inquiry into the charges
levelled against the delinquent office bearer. It would be prejudicial to the
public interest and the pending inquiry when the authorities are satisfied
that the witnesses may hesitate to depose against the delinquent office
bearer so long as he continues to be in office or if the delinquent office
bearer is capable of tampering with the witnesses or records. The power
of suspension must, therefore be resorted to sparingly with the sole object
of subserving and aiding a free and impartial inquiry under Section 81.
15.Another aspect is that the Registrar cannot apply the
same threshold applicable to a paid servant of a society while suspending
a President or Vice President under Section 76-A. A democratically
elected official cannot be put on the same pedestal as that of a paid
servant of the society. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir. V Collector reported in
(2012 4 SCC 407), the Supreme Court has stated the position in the
following terms:
“31. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self-
government has to be put on a higher pedestal as
against a government servant. If a temporary
http://www.judis.nic.in
government employee cannot be removed on the ground
of misconduct without holding a full-fledged inquiry, it is
difficult to imagine how an elected office-bearer can be
removed without holding a full-fledged inquiry.
32. In service jurisprudence, minor punishment is
permissible to be imposed while holding the inquiry as
per the procedure prescribed for it but for removal,
termination or reduction in rank, a full-fledged inquiry is
required otherwise it will be violative of the provisions of
Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The case is to be
understood in an entirely different context as compared
to the government employees, for the reason, that for the
removal of the elected officials, a more stringent
procedure and standard of proof is required.
34. In a democratic institution, like ours, the
incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for
which he has been elected unless his election is set
aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or he is
removed by the procedure established under law. The
proceedings for removal must satisfy the requirement of
natural justice and the decision must show that the
authority has applied its mind to the allegations made
and the explanation furnished by the elected office-
bearer sought to be removed.”
16.It would, therefore, be evident from the aforesaid decision
http://www.judis.nic.in
that interference with the term of office of an elected office bearer is an
exceptional case and cannot be resorted to routinely. An elected official is
answerable to the electorate, and his right to represent them in the affairs
of the society cannot be suspended on whimsical and fanciful grounds.
The threshold for suspension of an elected official is, therefore, very high
and it cannot be routinely resorted to as that would destroy the very basis
of the democratic set up of such societies.
17.More importantly, the Registrar, while acting under
Section 76-A cannot exercise power for purposes that are foreign to the
Act for that would be an abuse of power amounting to a malice in law
(See paragraph 47 of Ravi Yashwant Rao Bhoir, supra). The Registrar
cannot be guided by extraneous reasons, political or otherwise, while
exercising power under Section 76-A. As a statutory functionary he is
required to act honestly and cannot be guided by the diktats of the
political masters. The provision cannot be administered with an unequal
hand and an evil eye. The benchmark has been set out in the decision of
the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach reported in
(2013 7 SCC 25) wherein, it was observed thus:
http://www.judis.nic.in
“36.Statutory functionaries like the
Registrar/Joint Registrar of cooperative societies
functioning under the respective Cooperative Act must be
above suspicion and function independently without
external pressure. When an authority invested with the
power purports to act on its own but in substance the
power is exercised by external guidance or pressure, it
would amount to non-exercise of power, statutorily
vested. Large number of cases are coming up before this
Court and the High Courts in the country challenging the
orders of supersession and many of them are being
passed by the statutory functionaries due to external
influence ignoring the fact that they are ousting a
democratically elected Board, the consequence of which
is also grave because the members of the Board of
Directors would also stand disqualified in standing for
the succeeding election as well.
37. The Registrar/Joint Registrar, while
exercising powers of supersession has to form an
opinion and that opinion must be based on some
objective criteria, which has nexus with the final
decision. A statutory authority shall not act with pre-
conceived notion and shall not speak his masters' voice,
because the formation of opinion must be his own, not of
somebody else in power, to achieve some ulterior motive.
There may be situations where the Registrar/Joint
Registrar are expected to act in the best interest of the
society and its members, but in such situations, they
http://www.judis.nic.in
have to act bona fide and within the four corners of the
statute. In our view, the impugned order will not fall in
that category.”
18.To understand the serious impact of suspending an
elected member or an office bearer, let us take the extreme case of having
such a provision for an elected MLA or an MP. If there is a legislation
which provides for suspension of an elected MLA or an MP pending
inquiry on certain serious allegations of irregularities and corrupt
practices against him, it would seriously impact the rights of the elected
representative of the people who represent them in the Assembly or the
Parliament as the case may be. Obviously, this would offend the basic
tenets of democracy.
19.The reason why this Court took this example was to
illustrate the fact that the seriousness is immediately felt when a reference
is made to an elected Member of Assemblies or the Parliament. The
election of the Board or the office bearers is no less important, and the
only difference here is that the members of the Society elect them through
a democratic process in an election conducted by the Election
Commission. This must be borne in mind when dealing with a case of
http://www.judis.nic.in
this nature concerning where an interjection is sought to be made into the
functioning of the office bearers by suspending them even before the
inquiry is completed. There is no doubt that even as against the elected
Board or an office bearer, surcharge proceedings can be initiated under
Section 87 of the Act based on a report filed after an inquiry under
Section 81 of the Act. If the case involves criminal breach of trust or
criminalmisappropriation or misconduct, even criminal proceedings can
be initiated against the elected members of the board or the office bearers.
20.In the present case, the Joint Registrar (Inspection Cell),
based on a phone call received is said to have visited the society and
verified the documents on 20.05.2021 and identified certain violations.
The nature of violation is that a valuable property worth more than Rs.5
crores is said to have been leased to one Mr.Murugan for a monthly rent
of Rs 25,000 for a period of 11 years. Pursuant to the same, the said
Murugan is said to have constructed 39 shops in an extent of 2400 sq. ft.
and 1 shop is now being put to use and all the other shops have not been
let out to any third party. The said authority had given their report to that
effect on 20.05.2021 to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent in turn
http://www.judis.nic.in
directed the 2nd respondent to initiate an inquiry through letter dated
21.05.2021. Based on this letter, the 2ndRespondent through proceedings
dated 24.05.2021 had ordered for an inquiry under Section 81 of the Act
and an inquiry officer has also been appointed. Pending this inquiry, the
impugned proceedings dated 01.06.2021 came to be issued by the first
respondent suspending the petitioners for a period of 6 months.
21.The petitioners have taken a very specific stand to the
effect that they were very much in charge of the affairs of the society
during May 2021 and no such inspection was conducted and they were
not even aware about the initiation of the inquiry under Sec 81 of the Act
and that they came to know of it only after receiving the suspension order
from the 1STRespondent.
22.The learned SeniorCounsel for the petitioners has alleged
malafides and political vendetta and according to the learned Senior
Counsel, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent is nothing but
a “his master’s voice” of the present political disposition. Given the
nature of the allegations and denials it would be treading a slippery slope
if this Court were to return a finding merely based on the assertions made
http://www.judis.nic.in
by the petitioners and the same being denied by the respondents. The
proper course, therefore, would be to examine the impugned order and to
see if the jurisdictional requirements for triggering Section 76-A have
been met.
23.A careful reading of the impugned proceedings of the first
respondents reveals that it is a mechanical incantation of the very words
found in Sec 76-A of the Act. For proper appreciation, the relevant
portions in the impugned order are extracted hereunder.
"r';f Mtz';fis Ma;t[ bra;jj[py; tpjp
kPwy;fs; eilbgw;Ws;sjw;F mog;gil Kfhe;jpuk;
cs;sjhy; jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[r; r';f';fspd; rl;lk; 1983
gphpt[ fPH; tprhuizf;F Mizapl;L tphpthd tprhuiz
mwpf;ifapd; mog;gilapy; bjhlh; eltof;if
nkw;bfhs;syhk; vd;W mwpf;if rkh;gg; pj;jjpd;
mog;gilapy; ,J Fwpj;J brd;id kz;ly
Jizg;gjpthsh; (tPlL
; trjp)ahy; jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[r;
r';f';fspd; rl;lk ghpt[ 81d; fPH; rl;lg{h;t tprhuizf;F
Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/
vdnt X88 bguk;g{h; Tl;Lwt[r; fl;ol r';fj;jpy;
ele;Js;s tpjpkPwy;fSf;Fk;. KiwnfLfSf;Fk;. ek;gpf;if
nkhrof;Fk; fhuzkhf jh';fs; ,UtUk; ,Ug;gjw;F
http://www.judis.nic.in
mog;gil Kfhe;jpuk; cs;sjhYk;. r';f ey;d fUjpa[k.;
bghJ eyd; fUjpa[k; ,J bjhlh;ghf jkpH;ehL
Tl;Lwt[r; r';f';fspd; rl;lk; 1983 rl;lg;gphpt[ 81?d; fPH;
rl;lg;g{h;t tprhuif;F cj;jputplg;gl;L tprhuiz
epYitapy; cs;s epiyapy; ,r;r';fj;jpd; jw;nghija
jiyth; fpU.D. fpUc&;zK:h;jj; p kw;Wk; jw;nghija
Jizj;jiyth; jpUS.R/utp Mpfnahh;fis 1983
jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[r; r';f';fspd; rl;lk; gphpt[ 76-A-,d;
fPH; 01.06.2021 Kjy; 6 khj';fs; jw;fhypf gjtp ePff; k;
(Suspension) bra;J cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ. ,th;fs;
r';fj;jpd; jiyth; kw;Wk; Jizj; jiyth; bghWg;gpy;
,Ue;J cldoahf tpLtpf;fg;gLpfwhh;fs;".
24.Whether the suspension of elected officer bearers is
warranted pending an inquiry, depends upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. As pointed out, supra, the requirement of Section 76-A is
not merely the existence of prima facie material. The Registrar must
return a finding on the basis of such material that an order of suspension
was necessary in public interest or in the interests of the society. In other
words, the Registrar must satisfy himself that if such suspension is not
made, there is scope for the office bearers to interfere with theinquiry
http://www.judis.nic.in
and/or tamper with the evidence. In the absence of the any such
apprehension, there will be no requirement for suspension and the inquiry
can go on.
25.Section 76-A is a drastic power which interferes with the
rights of the elected members who have been voted to office, and must,
therefore, be exercised very sparingly and only in the clearest cases where
there is objective material to show that the continuation of office would
interfere and impede a free and fair inquiry under Section 81. Otherwise,
persons who have lost the election can always take control through a back
door by getting the Registrar pass an order suspending the office bearers
on the basis of external influence. Such a course is expressly forbidden in
the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Sanjay
Nagayach reported in (2013 7 SCC 25).
26.In the present case, things have moved very swiftly from
20.05.2021 to 1.06.2021 and by the time an inquiry officer was
appointed, the impugned proceedings suspending the petitioners came to
be issued on 01.06.2021.The present case only involves scrutiny of
documents which are already available and taking statements from the
http://www.judis.nic.in
petitioners and others. There is no scope for any serious tampering of
evidence since the documents are already available with the respondents.
There is absolutely no material on record to conclude that the suspension
was warranted in public interest or in the interests of the society. There is
nothing on record to show how the Registrar had apprehended that the
continuation of the petitioner’s in office would impede the course of a fair
and impartial inquiry. In other words, the Registrar has, quite evidently,
acted on surmises and conjectures.
27.As has been pointed out, supra, a mere prima facie case
will not do to invoke Section 76-A. The jurisdictional requirement of
Section 76-A has, thus, not been met in this case. Ex-consequenti, the
exercise of power by the first respondent to pass the impugned orders
dated 01.06.2021 under Section 76-A is clearly without jurisdiction.
28.In view of the above, the impugned proceedings dated
1.06.2021 of the first respondent suspending the petitioners under
Section 76-A of the Act are quashed. However, it is made clear that the
inquiry under Sec 81 of the Act can go on and a report shall be submitted
http://www.judis.nic.in
by the inquiry officer within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of the order. Needless to say that further action on the report shall
proceed strictly in accordance with law.
29.In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed on the
aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
10.08.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
KP
.
To
1.The Registrar of Co-operative Society
(Housing),
No.48, Rithdren Road,
Vepery,
Chennai 600 007.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2.The Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Society (Housing),
No.18, Ramanathan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
KP
http://www.judis.nic.in
Pre Delivery Common Order in
W.P.Nos.12476 and 12894 of 2021
10.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
