Disposed

E.M.Sekar, v. KK.162, N.S.Reddiyur Primary

Madras HC25 Jan 2019WP/1343/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Registrar was not barred from conducting an enquiry despite a pending Writ Appeal. The court directed the tribunal to conduct the enquiry but refrain from passing a final order for six weeks pending the decision in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

2nd respondent directed to proceed with enquiry but refrain from passing any final order in Revision within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

E.M.Sekar, Vs KK.162, N.S.Reddiyur Primary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.01.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. 1343 of 2019

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.s 1500 & 1504 of 2019

¶8

E.M.Sekar ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

KK.162, N.S.Reddiyur Primary Agricultural

¶11

Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.,

¶12

rep. by its President, N.S.Reddiyur, Dharmapuri District.

¶13

The Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, No.170, N.V.N.Maligai, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.

¶14

The Chairman Common Cadre Committee/ The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dharmapuri Region, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records, pertaining to the proceedings of 2^nd respondent's notice Na.Ka.48651/2011/Sa.Pa.1 dated 21.12.2018.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijay Anand

¶17

For Respondents 2&3 : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram,

¶18

Special Government Pleader

¶19

M/s.M.S.Palaniswamy, SC for TN State Co-op Societies for R1

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice issued by the 2^nd respondent directing the petitioner to appear for enquiry in a revision petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.123 of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act.

¶22

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

¶23

Earlier, the petitioner was removed from service by the 1^st respondent society. Challenging the order of removal, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the 2^nd respondent, and the 2^nd respondent by an order dated 14.12.2011 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of dismissal. Since the above order has been passed without hearing the society, the society filed a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in W.P. No.27953 of 2013, and this Court by an order dated 25.04.2018 set aside the order passed by the 2^nd respondent and remanded the matter back and also directed the 2^nd respondent to dispose the revision petition afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner.

¶24

In pursuant to the order passed by this court, the 2^nd respondent has issued the notice of hearing to the petitioner. Challenging the impugned notice, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition on the ground that against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27953 of 2013, the petitioner has filed the Writ Appeal with the delay and the notice was also ordered in the petition filed for condoning the delay. Pending above proceedings, the 2^nd respondent cannot conduct enquiry till the disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶25

On perusal of the order passed by this Court, it could be seen that the order has been passed on 25.04.2018 setting aside the order of the 2^nd respondent and remanded the matter and directed the 2^nd respondent to dispose the revision petition within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy the order. It could also be seen that the order copy was made ready on 16.05.2018, and already seven months was over, but the petitioner is not able to get any order in the Writ Appeal. In the said circumstances, the 2^nd respondent has no other option except to issue notice to the petitioner and this Court find no irregularity in the notice issued by the 2^nd respondent. However, the petitioner has already filed the Writ Appeal and the notice was also ordered. Hence, it is for the petitioner to get suitable orders in the Writ Appeal. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that four weeks time may be granted enabling him to move the Writ Appeal and get any suitable orders in the Writ Petition.

¶26

Considering the above facts and circumstances, the 2^nd respondent is directed to proceed with the enquiry and the 2^nd respondent is directed to not to pass any final order in the Revision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In the meantime, if the petitioner is not able to get any order in his favour in the Writ Appeal, it is open to the 2^nd respondent to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after expiry of six weeks.

¶27

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

¶28

In the result, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

rpp

¶33

To 1. President, KK.162, N.S.Reddiyur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., N.S.Reddiyur, Dharmapuri District. 2. The Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, No.170, N.V.N.Maligai, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. 3. The Chairman Common Cadre Committee/ The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dharmapuri Region, Dharmapuri District. +1 cc to Mr.M.Vijay Anand, Advocate, S.R.No.5907 +1 cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.6959

¶34

W.P. 1343 of 2019 and W.M.P.s 1500 & 1504 of 2019 KR(CO) SSM(21/02/2019).

¶35

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

E.M.Sekar, v. KK.162, N.S.Reddiyur Primary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.M.Sekar, v. KK.162, N.S.Reddiyur Primary

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

P.Jayakumar Vs The Licensing Authority

S.Vijayan, Vs The Commissioner

D.Kamala, Vs The District Educational

K.krishnan, Vs The Managing Director

P.Dhanasekaran Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Rose Mariyam, Vs The Commissioner