Madras High Court
The Deputy Registrar Of vs T.Murugesapandian .. 1St on 27 March, 2025
C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.3203 of 2025
The Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies,
Tiruchendur. .. Revision Petitioner/
1st Respondent
Vs.
1.T.Murugesapandian .. 1st Respondent/Appellant
2.TC 26 Kurumbur Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Credit Society,
Through its Secretary. .. 2nd Respondent/
2nd Respondent
3.J.Devaraj .. 3rd Respondent/
3rd Respondent
4.Jancy Chandra Gandha Gnanabai .. 4th Respondent/
4th Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against
the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2024 passed in C.M.A.(CS) No.20 of
_________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 05:26:52 pm )
C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025
2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi against Tha.Va.
1/2022-2023 order dated 09.12.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, has been filed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Tiruchendur against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal
filed under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1983”) against an order passed under
Section 87 of the Act, 1983.
2. The Deputy Registrar, who is the petitioner in this civil revision
petition, is the person authorised by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to
discharge his functions under Section 87 of the Act, 1983. The Deputy
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 05:26:52 pm )
C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025
Registrar exercising power under Section 87 of the Act, 1983 would be acting
as a quasi-judicial authority and therefore, this Court has entertained a doubt
about the maintainability of the civil revision petition at the instance of the
Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies.
3. Accordingly, Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted the Court and submitted that the Deputy Registrar exercising
powers under Section 87 of the Act, 1983 would be discharging the quasi-
judicial functions and he has also drawn the attention of this Court to sub-
section (4) of Section 87 of the Act, 1983, which reads as under:
“87(4). The Registrar or the person authorised
by him shall, when acting under this section, have all the
powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) in
respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of
any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of
any documents;
(c) reception of evidence on affidavits;
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 05:26:52 pm )
C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025
(d) requisitioning any public record from any
Court or office;
(e) issuing Commission for examining of
witnesses.”
4. From the perusal of sub-section (4) of Section 87 of the Act,
1983, it is fortified that the Deputy Registrar or the Registrar exercising
power under Section 87 of the Act, 1983 is conferred with powers of a civil
Court under the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, any power exercised
under Section 87 of the Act, 1983 would definitely fall within the scope of
quasi-judicial function.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General also further brought to
the notice of this Court a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India vs. Delhi International
Airport Ltd. And others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2923, wherein the
Honb'le Apex Court after having discussed the entire case law in elaborate,
came to the conclusion that the authority discharging the quasi-judicial
function cannot be arrayed as a party respondent to the appeal or revision
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 05:26:52 pm )
C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025
filed against its orders. The relevant portion from the said decision reads as
under:
“33. In view of the above discussion, the
following principles emerge:
a. An authority (either a judicial or quasi-
judicial authority) must not be impleaded in an appeal
against its order if the order was issued solely in exercise
of its “adjudicatory function”;
b. An authority must be impleaded as a
respondent in the appeal against its order if it was issued
in exercise of its regulatory role since the authority would
have a vital interest in ensuring the protection of public
interest; and
c. An authority may be impleaded as a
respondent in the appeal against its order where its
presence is necessary for the effective adjudication of the
appeal in view of its domain expertise.”
6. Here is a converse case where the authority who concluded the
proceedings as a 'quasi-judicial authority' has come before this Court by
filing the present civil revision petition. Once it is concluded that the quasi-
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 05:26:52 pm )
C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025
judicial authority cannot be impleaded as a respondent to a proceedings, such
a quasi-judicial authority shall be not entitled to initiate the further
proceedings initiated against the order passed by the said quasi-judicial
authority.
7. In the light of the above, this civil revision petition cannot be
entertained at the instance of the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative
Societies, who acted as a quasi-judicial authority and exercised power under
Section 87 of the Act, 1983. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed leaving it open to the aggrieved society to take appropriate steps
against the order under revision. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
8. However, the learned Additional Advocate General, has
expressed an apprehension that the Society, which is in fact aggrieved by an
order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may not choose to contest the said
order, as the persons who are responsible for such mis-management or
misappropriation would be continue to be in management of the said Society.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 05:26:52 pm )
C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025
9. No doubt, such a situation may arise in a particular facts and
circumstances of the case, but that would not deprive the authorities under
the Act, 1983 to take appropriate action against the persons who are mis-
managing such societies. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies is always
competent to initiate appropriate action against the Cooperative Societies
who are found to be involved in mis-managing the affairs or failed to protect
the interest of the Society.
27.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
ABR
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 05:26:52 pm )
C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
ABR
To
1.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Tiruchendur.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Thoothukudi.
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025
27.03.2025
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 05:26:52 pm )
