V. Kuppanna vs The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thiruvallur and two others

Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 23.8.2000 of the first respondent convening a meeting for ''no confidence'' against the President viz., the

petitioner herein, on 28.8.2000 pursuant to the requisition dated 24.7.2000 which was admittedly received by the Registrar on 27.7.2000, by five

directors out of six directors of the third respondent bank, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in

Na.Ka.No.3118 of 2000 E1 dated 23.8.2000 and the consequential resolution of the third respondent dated 28.8.2000 and quash the same.

Mr.K. Chandru, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the impugned notice dated 23.8.2000 on two grounds, viz.,

(i) the impugned notice violates Section 33 (14) and 33 (15) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 that the Registrar ought not to

have convened the meeting on his own without giving an opportunity to the petitioner viz., the President to convene the meeting, and (ii) the

impugned proceedings also violate Rule 62(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Rules which contemplates that the Registrar shall

exercise such power u/s 33 (14) and 33 (15) only within thirty days from the date of receipt of the requisition. In this regard, Mr.K. Chandru, the

learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon three decisions of this Court which are as follows:

(i) Mokkaiyan v. The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, Madurai, 1989 (2) MLJ 80; (ii) Order dated 2.2.2000 passed by A. Raman, J. in

W.P.No.19744 of 2000; (iii) Order dated 24.4.2000 passed by A. Raman, J. in W.P.No.3795 of 2000.

Per contra, Mr.M.K. Hidayathullah, teamed Additional Government Pleader placing reliance on the decision dated 27.9.1999 in

W.P.No.15467 of 1999, contends that the first respondent can exercise the power u/s 33 (15) of the Act and convene the meeting directly

without giving an opportunity to the President to convene such meeting.

In any event, there is no dispute as to the fact that the requisition of five out of six directors of the third respondent bank, dated 24.7.2000,

expressing ''no confidence'' against the petitioner, was received by the first respondent on 27.7.2000 and the first respondent convened the

meeting by the impugned notice dated 23.8.2000 only on 28.8.2000 which is beyond thirty days. Therefore, on this ground itself, the impugned

notice dated 23.8.2000 and the consequential resolution of the third respondent bank dated 28.8.2000 are set aside.

In the light of the above admitted facts, there is no necessity to go into other contentions of both the counsel. Hence, the impugned notice dated

23.8.2000 and the consequential resolution dated 28.8.2000 stands quashed and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.

Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.21753 and 21754 of 2000 are closed.