Madras High Court
The Registrar Of Cooperative Societies vs P.Denis on 14 February, 2025
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A.(MD).No.298 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A.(MD).No.298 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.2261 of 2025
1.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Periyar E.V.R.Salai
Kilpauk, Chennai.
2.The Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Marketing Plan and Development,
Office of the Registrar,
Periyar EVR Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai.
3.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
4.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
1.P.Denis
2.Nesaiyan
3.Maheswari
4.Sornam
5.Chelladurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
W.A.(MD).No.298 of 2025
6.K.Gnanamani Respondents/Writ Petitioners
7.The Secretary
Y-93 Vilunthayambalam Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Thrift Society,
Vilunthayambalam Post
Kanyakumari District ... 7th Respondent/5th respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order dated 28.09.2022 passed in W.P.(MD).No.15812 of 2013.
For Appellants : Mrs.D.Farhana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.K.Jeyamohan for R1
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU,J.)
The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the writ
court dated 28.09.2022 in W.P.(MD).No.15812 of 2013.
2. The order of the writ Court is challenged mainly on two grounds:
(i) Beyond the cadre strength to be adopted by the Society under the
circular dated 02.12.1993, the respondents/board members have appointed three
members, which is against Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies
Rules, 1988. Such appointments were also made without getting permission,
which caused loss to the society. However, the same has not been taken note of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, and
(ii) The second ground that has been raised is that for the
mismanagement of the affairs of the society, Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu
Cooperative Societies Act deals with disqualification and removal and upon
investigation, action can be taken under Section 36 of the Act, however, no
limitation whatsoever has been prescribed for taking such action, which was
not considered by the learned Single Judge.
On these grounds, the learned Special Government Pleader prays for
interference.
3. From the order of the writ Court, it is seen that the proceedings could
be initiated under Section 36 of the Act only for misappropriation or for
fraudulently retained money or the property or for being guilty of breach of
trust. In the case on hand, it is rightly held that none of the ingredients to
Section 36 have been satisfied. The writ petitioners being the board of
members only appointed three members considering the situation prevailing at
the time of appointment and the members have already been terminated within
a period of three months from the date of such appointment. For the said
appointment that has been made in the year 1996, action has been taken in the
year 2005, after the period of board of members was over as early as on 2001.
The learned Single Judge had held that for the appointments that have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
made by the writ petitioners would not amount to gross mismanagement, which
was made considering the emergency situation prevailed at that point of time
and therefore, the appellants were not justified in invoking Section 36 of the
Act.
4. It is seen from the records that when the ingredients that has been
specified under Section 36 of the Act were not available and when there is no
misappropriation or any guilty of retaining the property or money or any breach
of trust in relation to the society, the action initiated against the writ petitioners
do not come under the definition of gross mismanagement. The learned Single
Judge had rightly quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition.
Hence, no interference is warranted to the findings rendered by the learned
Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(J.N.B.,J.) (S.S.Y.,J.)
14.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.NISHA BANU,J.
and
S.SRIMATHY,J.
RR
14.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
