K.S.Muraliprasad vs The Deputy Registrar(Dairying)
2021 Latest Caselaw 19895 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 19895 Mad
Judgement Date : 29 September, 2021

Madras High Court

K.S.Muraliprasad vs The Deputy Registrar(Dairying) on 29 September, 2021

                                                                                W.A.No. 458 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 29.09.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
                                                    AND
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN

                                              W.A.No. 458 of 2021 and
                                              C.M.P. No 1803 of 2021

                     K.S.Muraliprasad                                         ...Appellant


                                                         Vs.

                     1.The Deputy Registrar(Dairying)
                       Vellore.

                     2. The Managing Director,
                        Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers
                        Federation Ltd.,
                        3, Chamiers Road, Nandanam,
                        Chennai 600 035.                                      ....Respondents


                     Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act, to set aside

                     the order passed by this Court dated 24.09.2020 in W.P.No.12900 of 2020

                     and allow the Writ Appeal.




                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      W.A.No. 458 of 2021

                                        For Appellant     : Mr.G. Sankaran

                                        For Respondents : Mr.K.Tippusultan,
                                                          Government Advocate for R1
                                                                Mr.C.Jaya Prakash for R2
                                                            *****
                                                        JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J)

The Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 24.09.2020 passed in

W.P.No.12900 of 2020, by which the learned Single Judge directed that in

case the order is not furnished to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner as claimed by

him, the Respondents are directed to furnish a copy of the order to enable

the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under the Tamil Nadu Co-

operative Societies Act, 1983 (for brevity 'the Act').

2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant is that when the powers have not been conferred by the Authority

in terms of Section 3 of the Act and that the Officer who has initiated the

proceedings have not vested with any powers, pursuant to G.O Ms.No.369,

Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (MP-II) Department- Conferment of

powers of Registrar on certain officers of Dairy Development Department

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 458 of 2021

under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act dated 22.08.1989, wherein

the powers under Section 181 of the Act has not been vested with the

Deputy Registrar, the proceedings itself is void. He further submitted that

even though the alternative remedy is available before the Tribunal,

constituted under the Act, till the issue is decided by the Tribunal, recovery

may be kept in abeyance, as the Appellant has been foisted against the

charge for no fault on him.

3. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents

submitted that interms of Section 3 of the Act, the Registrar has got all the

powers, moreso, in light of Section 81(2) of the Act, the powers can be

entrusted to another officer who is empowered to initiate the action under

Section 87 of the Act. He further submitted that the Appellant has got

alternative remedy and as there are two proceedings one under Section 81

and another under Section 87 of the Act, without exhausting the alternative

remedy, the Appellant ought not to have approached this Court.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the materials available on record.

5. Merely because an alternative remedy is available, it is not a bar for

this Court to entertain the matter. Though, the Tribunal has powers to pass

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 458 of 2021

an interim order of stay/injunction, in the present case on hand, already

recovery has been effected and the main grievance of the Writ Petitioner/

Appellant was that surcharge proceeding which has been initiated against

him, have not been communicated to him and without communicating the

same, recovery procedure was initiated and both the orders need to be

interfered with.

6. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the Writ

Petitioner has got alternative remedy before the Tribunal. In this context, it

would be useful to refer the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

M.P.No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021, with

regard to cognizance for extension of limitation and the relevant portion of

the order is extracted hereunder:

8. Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No.665 of 2021 with the following directions:

-

I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal,application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 458 of 2021

II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining,with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

IV. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state.

“Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 458 of 2021

7. Hence, we are of the view that the Writ Petitioner/Appellant shall

approach the Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of

a copy of this, order by filing necessary application before the Tribunal,

which has got powers to pass an interim order of Stay/ Injunction. The issue

is whether the Registrar has got powers to delegate the subordinates is the

matter to be decided factually and this Court is not inclined to grant any

relief in the present Appeal with regard to the same. However, the

Respondents, being the Co-operative Society shall keep the amount

recovered from the Writ Petitioner in a separate account and in case

favourable order has been passed in favour of the Appellant, it shall be

released to the Appellant.