AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—In the first writ petition, the Petitioner had challenged a show cause notice, dated 7.5.2010 issued by the fourth Respondent Sivagangai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union represented by its General Manager. By the impugned notice, the Petitioner was informed that her appointment as a Clerk in the Pudukkottai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union which was taken as the basis for her appointment as Junior Executive and thereafter as an Assistant Executive, was illegal and contrary to the rules and regulations including violation of the dictum of the Supreme Court in A. Uma Rani v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Ors. reported in 2004 (4) LLN 8. Therefore, they had proposed to terminate her service. The writ petition was not admitted. But, however an interim stay was granted by this Court on 14.5.2010.
Likewise, W.P.(MD) No. 7385 of 2010 was filed by an another Petitioner challenging a show cause notice, dated 7.5.2010 on similar grounds. That writ petition was admitted on 10.6.2010 and an interim stay was granted in M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010. In view of the inter-connectivity, both writ petitions were heard together and a common order is passed.
Heard the arguments of Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. S. Visvalingam, learned Counsel appearing for Sivagangai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union and Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate for first Respondent in both writ petitions.
Despite the fact that no writ will lie against the cooperative societies as per the larger bench judgment of this Court in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and The Special Officer, Vattur Co-operative Agricultural Bank, , Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that in the present case, a writ is maintainable against the society. The counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance upon an unreported judgment of a division bench in W.A. No. 2743 of 2002 in K. Mathialagan v. The Tamilnadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited Staff Association, rep. by its President, Madras-600 051 and two others, dated 18.4.2009. In that case, the division bench held that the writ is maintainable against the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited (TCMPF). The grounds for its maintainability were set out in paragraphs 13 and 14. But, however in this case, this Court is not concerned with the maintainability of a writ petition against the State level federation, i.e. TCMPF. But the present claim is only against the District Cooperative Milk Producers Union and that issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 6713 to 6716 of 2009.P. Jyothimani, J in respect of the very same District Cooperative Milk Producers Union, after referring to all the case laws and after applying the exceptions carved out in Marappan''s case held that the service conditions of the employees are governed by the bylaws of the society. Therefore, the writ will not lie against the society and the issue is covered by the Marappan''s case.
It must also be noted that subsequent to Marappan''s case, an another learned Judge in M. Mahendravarman and Ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and Ors. reported in 2009 (5) CTC 237 undertook an exercise of considering the maintainability of a writ petition against a District Central Cooperative Bank and held that they do not come under the exception of Marappan''s case and hence no writ will lie.
Notwithstanding the same, Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P. State Co-op. Dairy Fedn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and Others, and contended that a writ petition was held to be maintainable as against the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited.
In that case, originally the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the said Federation of Dairy Cooperative Societies is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Subsequently, the issue was referred to a Special Bench. The Special Bench, having regard to the control exercised by the Madhya Pradesh State over the said Federation held that it is a ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Special Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Federation approached the Supreme Court by way of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 2442 of 2009 and batch cases. he Supreme Court after examining the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and also applying the various tests laid by the Supreme Court for deciding as to whether the particular agency is a ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, upheld the decision of the Special Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
In paragraph 15, while referring to the Special Bench judgment reported in M.P. State Co-operative Dairy Federation and Others Vs. Madan Lal Chourasia, , the Supreme Court said that the test for holding a particular Society as a ''State'' within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution of India was fully satisfied. In the decision of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, after referring to the Madhya Pradesh High Court''s decision, the Supreme Court held that 91% of the shares were held by the State and Central Governments. The Board of Directors of the said Federation was constituted under Bye-law No. 22 of the Society. Eight out of thirteen members were either nominees of the State or Central Government or their agencies. After referring to the other special bye-laws, the Supreme Court held that the Government had deep and pervasive control over the Society. It also approved the finding that the Board of Directors was dominated by the nominees of the Government and the General Assembly will also take decisions in its meeting in the manner as desired by the Government. Therefore, it was held that the Federation was also dominated and controlled by the Government administratively and functionally. After holding so, the matter which arose under service law was decided by the Supreme Court in favour of the employees.
Apart from approving the decision, one of the issue that came up for consideration was also the application of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and under that Act Section 47 injuncts an employer in dispensing with the service of a disabled person only because of his acquired disability. Hence, relief was granted. It is not clear as to how the said decision will have any bearing on the present case.
As already stated by this Court, this Court is not concerned with the composition of State Level Federation and in an appropriate case, that issue can be gone into. But it is suffice to state that in an identical circumstance, this Court held that a writ petition will not lie. Further, the exercise undertaken in the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited regarding the composition of the society cannot be done as no materials were placed before the Court. The unreported decision of the division bench in TCMPF case will have no application in a case relating to a District Milk Producers Society.
In the light of the above, there is no case made out. Accordingly, both writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.