M.S.E. Elumalai and others vs The Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Salem, The Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras and T. Sivaprakasam, Special Officer, S.A. 133, Velmurugan Silk Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd.

Sathiadev, J.—Petitioners were nominated to the Society called Sri Velmurugan Silk Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., by proceedings

of the First respondent dated 17-2-1988 for a period from 17-2-1988 to 31-3-1988. The Society was registered on 17-2-1988 under the Tamil

Nadu Act 53 of 1961. It is claimed that even though they are entitled to continue to be the members of the society, on 1-7-1988, the third

respondent was appointed as Special Officer for six months and again by order dated 30-12-1988, it was extended upto 30-6-1989 under S.

89(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 1983, which came into force on 13-4-1988. Since the said Special Officer under Proviso to

S. 89(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1983, cannot continue to hold office beyond a period of one year, in the aggregate, it had

necessitated the petitioners to file this writ petition for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to hand over the affairs of the Society to them. On behalf of

the respondents it is stated that it would not be correct to claim that a Special Officer came to be appointed on any date earlier to 1-7-1988 and

what had happened on 1-4-1988 was the appointment of an Inspector under S. 119-A of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The

Special Officer was appointed on 1-7-1988 under S. 89(1), and thereafter Ordinance No. 4 of 1989 having come into force on 1-7-1989, his

further continuance is not illegal.

The assumption of office on 1-4-1988, whether as Secretary or Inspector, was under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act of 1961, and therefore

the computation of the period of one year could not be from that date. S. 89(1) of Tamil Nadu Act of 1983 having been invoked only on 1-7-

1988 by the appointment of the Special Officer, which is the stand taken by the petitioners themselves in paragraph 2 of the affidavit, under the

proviso to the said section, he could be in office only for a period of one year on and from 1-7-1988. Therefore, after 30-6-1989, his further

continuance in the same capacity was illegal.

No doubt, learned Special Government Pleader relied upon clauses 3 and 4 of Ordinance No. 4 of 1989; but under clause 3 of the Ordinance,

the appointment of a Special Officer under clause 4 could be only with reference to a Society in which a Committee or a Board has been holding

office as such immediately before the ''appointed day'' and not in respect of Societies where, in the place of a Committee or Board, a Special

Officer had been functioning on the appointed day. Therefore, any appointment claimed to have been made by invoking Ordinance No. 4 of 1989

is respect of the said Society, would not come within the ambit of he said Ordinance.

Hence, the further continuance of the Special Officer appointed under S. 89(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act of 1983 beyond 1-7-1989 being illegal,

the only course now open to the respondents is to entrust the affairs of the Society to an elected Board of Directors. As directed in K.S. Gopal v.

State of Tamil Nadu by Commissioner and Secretary Handlooms Textiles, Khadi Dept. Madras and others W.P. 10819 of 1988, the respondents

are hereby commanded to hold the elections to the said Society and entrust its affairs to the elected members of the Society on or before 28-2-

1990. The time limit fixed has to be scrupulously adhered, failing which it will be treated as contravention of the directions of this Court resulting in

suo motu contempt proceeding being initiated. Hence, this writ petition is allowed with costs Rs. 500.