C.Rajeswari Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

C.Rajeswari Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (first respondent) should be directed, by writ of mandamus under Article 226, to conduct an enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer not below the rank of Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies into the alleged malpractice whereby respondents 3 and 5 to 12 purportedly grabbed the properties of the petitioner and her family members, and to take further action on the enquiry report.

Court's answer

The Court was not prepared to grant any direction as sought by the writ petitioner; the Writ Petition stands dismissed, with no costs.

Ratio / Principle

A writ court can never examine whether the Power of Attorney was executed by the petitioner, her family members and her husband owing to the circumstances alleged, or whether they knew the consequences of executing it; such matters are outside the Court's examination. The petitioner sought no relief to cancel the Power of Attorney executed on 11.12.2017 in favour of the 7th respondent, nor any declaration that the documents executed on its basis (sale deeds in favour of respondents 8 to 12) were null and void, and she had not sought any direction from the Division Bench in WA.No.780 of 2019 to expand the scope of the enquiry already directed so as to include the relief sought in the present writ petition.

Key takeaways

The Court observed that several facts were not stated in the affidavit and could be construed as deliberate suppression — notably that the petitioner's husband was a Secretary of the 5th respondent Society — and that the petitioner, being an accused in a criminal case registered for misappropriation of funds from the Co-operative Society, was knocking at the door raising one claim after another, the writ petition having been very cleverly filed on a separate issue after the earlier writ petition had attained finality.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (C.V. Karthikeyan, J.), order dated 22.01.2025 in Writ Petition No.5903 of 2019: dismissed, no costs. C. Rajeswari sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 directing the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (first respondent) to appoint an Enquiry Officer not below the rank of Additional Registrar to investigate alleged malpractice by respondents 3 and 5 to 12 — persons connected with the Berigai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society — said to have grabbed her and her family's properties, following execution of a Power of Attorney in favour of respondent 7 on 11.12.2017 and subsequent sale deeds in favour of respondents 8 to 12. The Court held that a writ court can never examine whether the Power of Attorney was executed owing to the circumstances alleged or whether the executants knew its consequences; the petitioner sought neither cancellation of the Power of Attorney nor declaration of the resulting documents null and void, and had not sought any direction from the Division Bench in WA.No.780 of 2019 — which had, by judgement dated 12.03.2019, merely directed an officer not below Additional Registrar rank to examine the loan-disbursement issue — to expand that enquiry's scope. Noting omissions in the affidavit construable as deliberate suppression (the petitioner's husband was Secretary of respondent-5 Society) and that the petitioner stood as 2nd accused in FIR Crime No.1/2019 (CCIW, Krishnagiri) for misappropriation of Society funds, while enquiries under S.81 and surcharge proceedings under S.87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 had already been pursued against the husband, the Court refused any direction and dismissed the petition.