Madras High Court
G.Rathinam vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 28 November, 2023
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.2503 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.2503 of 2023
G.Rathinam,
S/o. Govindasamy,
No.1/158, Mela Street,
Andiyappanur Post,
Vaniyampadi Taluk, Vellore District. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Co-Operative Societies, Vellore,
Vellore District.
2.The President,
C-2143, Andiyappanur Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Thrift Society,
Andiyappanur Post,
Vaniyampadi Taluk, Vellore District. .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 09.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.26938 of 2016 on the file of this
Court.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2503 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.S.Doraisamy
For Respondents : Mr.Silambannan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.]
This writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned
Judge in W.P.No.26938 of 2016 on 09.06.2023.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal, according to the
appellant, are that he was working as Secretary in the second respondent
Society. On 14.05.2003, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Thirupathur, ordered an enquiry against the appellant under Section 81 of
the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, on complaint of irregularities. The
Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry behind the back of the appellant and
had submitted an unilateral report on 21.08.2003. Disciplinary proceedings
was initiated and a show cause notice was issued. Thereafter, the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
filed various writ petitions challenging the proceedings of the Society. While
so, the second respondent passed an order of dismissal on 19.05.2014,
against which, the appellant preferred WP.No.14147 of 2014 and the said
writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the
statutory authority. Pursuant to the same, the appellant preferred a revision
on 11.02.2015, which came to be disposed of, on 12.10.2015, by the first
respondent, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the
appellant. Hence, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26938 of 2016
challenging both the orders passed by the respondent authorities. The
learned Judge disposed of the said writ petition, with the following
observations and directions:
"11.... Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is not the competent authority
to deal with the issue involved in the instant case. The competent authority is
the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent has acted without jurisdiction. Even
G.O.Ms.No.122 saved pending proceedings and all disciplinary proceedings
pending on the relevant dates viz., 04.07.2008 were to be continued to be
dealt with only by the competent authority. In the instant case, the
petitioner's case is pending from 2004 onwards and therefore, the competent
authority is only the 1st respondent and not the 2nd respondent. Even though
the petitioner has raised several other grounds that he was not afforded
adequate opportunity to put forth his case since this court has found that the
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is in excess and without
authority and on this limited ground, the impugned order is set aside and
remitted back to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders on merits after
affording fair opportunity to the writ petitioner to put forth all his
contentions. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed..."
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Judge, the present appeal
has been preferred by the appellant herein.
3.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel for the appellant, after arguing for some time, submitted that it
would suffice, if the time limit granted by the learned Judge to pass orders
afresh by the first respondent, on merits, is extended for a further period of
three months.
4.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents has no serious objection for granting such relief to the appellant.
5.In view of the above, the time limit fixed by the learned Judge is
extended for a further period of three months, which will take effect from
today. Accordingly, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders as
directed by the learned Judge in the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 in
WP.No.26938 of 2016, within the said period.
6.With the aforesaid directions, this writ appeal stands disposed of.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
28.11.2023
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order/ Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
nsd
To
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Co-Operative Societies, Vellore,
Vellore District.
2.The President,
C-2143, Andiyappanur Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Thrift Society,
Andiyappanur Post,
Vaniyampadi Taluk, Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
nsd
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
