A.P. Subramani vs The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, The Enquiry Officer Co-operative Sub Registrar and K.K. 232 Dharmapuri Taluk Co.op Housing Society Ltd.

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition challenging an enquiry report furnished u/s 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative

Societies Act dated 10.8.2005 by the 2nd respondent.

The ground raised by the petitioner was that the enquiry report was rendered in violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 81(4)

of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act read with Rule 104(6)(a) of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules.

Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted an interim stay on 10.2.2006. Subsequently, the attempt made by the Society to vacate the interim

stay could not materialise, since the bundle was misplaced. Therefore, on direction from this Court, the bundle was reconstructed and came to be

posted.

On behalf of the society, it was contended that the challenge to the Report u/s 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act is misconceived.

Since the said Report is only a fact finding report, no prejudice is caused to any person, whose conduct may not likely to be commended by at this

stage.

In any event, attention is drawn to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in S.V.K. Sahasramam v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative

Societies, Tiruvannamalai Circle, Tiruvannamalai and Ors. reported in (2008) 8 MLJ 231. The Division Bench presided by A.K. Ganguly, C.J (as

he then was), in paragraphs 9 to 11 observed as follows:

It is nobody''s case that in the instant case, the proceeding u/s 81 of the said Act amounts to an enquiry which can be called a departmental or

disciplinary enquiry. It cannot be disputed that an enquiry u/s 81 of the said Act is an enquiry in public interest in order to find out whether the

affairs of a Cooperative Society are conducted legally and whether there are financial improprieties in the matter of conduct of its affairs. Such an

enquiry cannot be prima facie compared to an enquiry against any individual employee. It is obviously true that as a follow up action on such

enquiry u/s 81, various other steps may be taken, viz., surcharge proceedings can be initiated u/s 87 and steps can be also taken for initiating

criminal proceedings. In the instant case, both these steps have been taken.

Before the learned Judge of the writ court, the appellant relied on two learned single Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the case of

T.V. Ekambaram and two others Vs. The Co-operative Tribunal cum District Judge, Madurai and 2 others, and in the case of Gabriel Vs. The

Deputy Registrar (Housing) and T.No.1735, Anna Nagar Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd., . In both these two judgments, the

provisions of Section 87 of the said Act which relate to surcharge proceedings were examined and the learned Judges in both the aforesaid

judgements construed the following proviso to Section 87.

Provided further that the action commenced under this Sub-section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of such

commencement or such further period or periods as the next higher authority may permit but such extended period or periods shall not exceed sic

months in the aggregate.

Considering the said time limit of six months, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the said period of six months is mandatory.

We are constrained to hold that event though no appeal has been taken to us from the said judgments, yet having regard to the well settled

legal position which has been referred to hereinabove, the finding of the learned Judges in these two judgments that the period of six months in the

second proviso to Section 97 of the said Act is mandatory is not a correct finding in law. We find that even though before the learned Judge of the

writ Court, those two judgements of the learned single Bench were cited, the learned Judge of the Writ court was not swayed by those two

decisions and came to a correct finding, relying upon the well settled proposition laid down by the Supreme Court as pointed above hereinabove.

Though the petitioner had placed strong reliance upon the earlier decision of this Court in T.V. Ekambaram and two others Vs. The Co-

operative Tribunal cum District Judge, Madurai and 2 others, and Gabriel Vs. The Deputy Registrar (Housing) and T.No.1735, Anna Nagar Co-

operative Housing Building Society Ltd., , all these decisions are referred to by the Division Bench in paragraph 10 set out above. It was also held

that those decisions have not rendered correct finding of law.

Subsequently, R. Banumathi, J, following the said Division Bench judgment in the decision of G. Panneerselvam and Ors. v. Deputy Registrar of

Cooperative Societies, Dharmapuri and Ors. reported in (2009) 2 MLJ 901 applied the same yardstick even to the proceedings u/s 87 of the

Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The said view taken by the learned Judge was found acceptance by a subsequent Division Bench in A.

Balaraman and Ors. v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District and Ors. reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1032.

In the light of the same, the Writ Petition is misconceived. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. The applications for interim stay as well as vacate

stay stand infructuous and accordingly stand closed.