R. Sambath Chandra vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the Notice dated 07.12.2005

issued u/s 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"").

The grounds of challenge to the notice are as under:

(i) that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction as u/s 36(1) of the Act, the jurisdiction vests with the Registrar Co-operative Societies, whereas

the notice was issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies;

(ii) that the impugned notice is hit by settled law that nobody can be Judge of his own cause.

In support of the first contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, referred to Section 36(1) of the Act, wherein the authority vests with the

Registrar Co-operative Societies to take action against the members of the Committee.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted, as the ""Registrar"" has been defined to read as under:

2 (23) ""Registrar"" means an officer of the Government appointed to perform the duties of a Registrar of Co-operative Societies under this Act and

includes any other officer of the Government (or any officer of body corporate owned or controlled by the Government) on whom all or any of the

powers of a Registrar under this Act have been conferred u/s 3.

Section 3 of the Act reads as under:

The Registrar:- The Government may appoint any officer of the Government to be Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State of Tamil

Nadu or any portion of it or for any class or classes or category or categories of registered societies and may, by general or special order, confer

on any other officer of the Government (or any officer of any body corporate owned or controlled by the Government) all or any of the powers of

a Registrar under this Act.

The power of the Registrar, therefore, is also vested in the Joint Registrar under the provisions of the Act. It cannot be said that the notice is

without jurisdiction.

In support of the second ground, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended, that the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society was the

Member of the Board, where the decision was taken to promote Henry Thangam.

It is also the contention that the allegations against Henry Thangam were not grave, which would disentitle him the promotion. The Joint

Registrar, being Member of the Board, which took decision to promote Henry Thangam, therefore he is not entitled to initiate proceedings u/s

36(1) of the Act, as he cannot be a Judge of his own cause.

This contention cannot be looked into at this stage. It is always open to the Petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice, by taking all possible

objections. The cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court can arise only, if any, adverse order is passed.

This writ petition, on the face of it, is pre-mature.

Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed as pre-mature. No. costs.