Allowed

G.Deepa, v. The Joint Registrar of

Madras HC17 Jun 2016WP/2042/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 against a co-operative society. The Court held that re-initiating the same proceedings after an earlier inspection found no lapse on the part of the current administration amounted to an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings dated 15.12.2014 initiated under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 are quashed.

G.Deepa, Vs The Joint Registrar of — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

G. Deepa ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies,
Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies,
Coimbatore Circle, Coimbatore.
3.The Management,
CC 2411, Ganesapuram Consumer
Co-operative Wholesale stores,
No. 424, S. Ramasamy Nagar,
Pankaja Mill, Coimbatore – 641 045. ... Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings dated 15.12.2014 made in Na.Ka.2730/2014 Nu.Ku. And quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.C. Munusamy

¶8

For Respondents : Mr.L.P. Shanmughasundaram Special Government Pleader (Co-op.)

¶9

The petitioner is the President of Ganesapuram Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Store and she was elected to the said post on 30.04.2013. She is functioning as such from the date along with other office bearers and Directors. The said Cooperative Wholesale Store is running four fair price shops by which essential commodities are sold to the public. While so,

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

the 2^nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 82 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 on the ground that the CC 2411, Ganesapuram Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Store has not paid the amount due to the Principal Society namely, Singanallur Town Co-operative Credit Society to the tune of Rs. 4,39,063.96p vide proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 2730 of 2013 dated 06.08.2013. The Inspection Officer made investigation and found that there was no lapse on the part of the present administration and submitted his report, as early as on 14.11.2013. In spite of the said report, by virtue of the impugned order dated 15.12.2014, the 2^nd respondent, again, initiated proceedings under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, on the very same ground, namely, with regard to non-payment of dues to the Principal Society and appointed an Inspection Officer, to conduct inspection and to file a report. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶12

Mr.C. Munusamy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in respect of the same allegation, Section 82 enquiry was already ordered and it was found out on inspection that there was no lapse on the part of the petitioner's administration of the Society and a report was also filed to that effect. When such is the position, the impugned proceedings are unnecessary.

¶13

However, Mr.L.P. Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, would submit that the report submitted by the Inspection Officer, is with regard to the earlier period where as the present impugned proceedings dated 15.12.2014 is with regard to the year 2012 and therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the impugned proceedings are sustainable and seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶14

A perusal of the records would show, especially, the subject, which has been incorporated in the inspection report dated 14.11.2013 would denote that the enquiry under Section 82 of the said Act was ordered with regard to non-payment of dues to the Principal Society and a similar reference is also made in the impugned proceedings dated 15.12.2014. After the enquiry, conducted earlier, Section 82 report was filed on 14.11.2013 and it was stated therein that the present administration took charge only on 09.05.2013 and the reference was made on 06.08.2013, within three months from the date of assumption of charge by the present office-bearers. It is stated at page No.3 of the inspection report dated 14.11.2013 that the present administration is in no way responsible for non-payment of dues and the relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder:

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

@nkw;fz;l gl;oay;go. eph;thfk; Kjd;ikr; r';fj;jpw;Fhpa epYitj; bjhifiar; brYj;jhky; ,Ug;gjw;Ff; fhuzk;. Kd; epYitj; bjhif kw;Wk; rpg;ge;jprhjy;thh; bryt[ nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;ljd; fhuzkhf vd Kot [ bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ vdnt jw;nghija eph;thfk; ntz;Lbkd;W Kjd;ikr; r';fj;jpw;F epYit itj;Js;sJ vd;W Tw mog;gilr; fhuz';fs; ,y;iy/@

¶17

Further, with regard to non-auditing of the accounts, it has been stated in the last page of the report that auditing was not done, right from the beginning, and the said portion of the report reads thus:

¶18

@nkw;fz;l khd;aj; bjhif gz;lfj;jpw;F murhy; mDkjpf;fg;gLk; nghJ Kjd;ikr; r';fj;jpw;Fr; brYj;jg;gl ntz;oa epYitj; bjhif Kw;wpYkhf neh; bra;ag;gLtjw;fhd tha;g;g[s;s epiyapy;. jw;nghija eph;thfk; jtph;f;f ,ayhj R{H;epiyapy; kl;Lnk Kjd;ikr; r';fj;jpw;F epYit itj;Js;sJ vd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,g;gz;lf bray;ghLfspy; kpft[k; Kf;fpakhd ,dk;. ,g;gz;lfj;jpd; jzpf;if Muk;g fhyk; bjhl;nl nkw;bfhs;sg;gltpy;iy vd;gjhFk;/ ,e;j khbgUk; Fiwghl;odhy; gz;lfk; nfhaKj;J}h; khtl;l kj;jpa Tl;Lwt[ t';fp K:yk;. Epaha tpiyf; fil elj;Jtjw;fhd fhRf; fld; trjpiag; bgw;W bray;gLj;jtpy;iy/ ,e;j epiy ePog;gJ Kjd;ikr; r';fk;. ,izg;g[r; r';fk;. Efh;nthh; eyd; Mfpatw;wpw;Fg; ghjpg;ig Vw;gLj;Jk; vd;gjhy; chpa eltof;if nkw; bfhs;s ntz;Lk; vd;w ghpe;Jiuiar; rkh;g;gpj;J vdJ mwpf;ifapidr; rkh;g;gpf;fpnwd;/ gz;lfj;jpd; g';Fj; bjhif mst[k; fzprkhf cah;j;jg;gl gz;lf eph;thfk; jf;f Kaw;rpfis nkw;bfhs;s ntz;Lk;///@

¶19

Therefore, the present office bearers, who took charge only on 09.05.2013, cannot be held liable for any lapse and that was the finding given by the Inspection Officer in his earlier report. When a full-fledged enquiry is already over in respect of the subject matter of the present impugned proceedings and pursuant to the said enquiry, when a categorical finding has been given that the present office bearers are not responsible for the non-payment of dues to the Principal Society as well as for non-auditing of accounts, initiating proceedings once again under Section 82 of the said Act is nothing but clear abuse of process of law. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected M.Ps are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar nv

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

¶23

1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

¶24

Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore.

¶25

2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

¶26

Coimbatore Circle, Coimbatore.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.C. Munusamy, Advocate, S.R.No.33349 +1cc to Mr.L.P. Shanmughasundaram, Advocate, S.R.No.33564 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.33724 W.P. No. 2042 of 2015

¶28

ALA(CO) CA(12/07/2016)

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G.Deepa, v. The Joint Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Deepa, v. The Joint Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Periyanayagam Vs the Regional Manager

Gothanda Reddy, Vs The District Collector

Viralimalai Rane Trw Vs Government of Tamilnadu

Silvar Palms Welfare Vs Chennai Metropolitan Water

Saradha Papers and Boards Vs The Chairman

St.Peters College of Education Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu