N. JEGAN Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring the special meeting held on 21.09.2019 based on the notice dated 10.09.2019 and the consequential proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.09.2019 as null and void and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to convene a special meeting by following the procedures contemplated under Rule 62 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988.

(2.) The petitioner is the elected President of A1183, Karupatti Primary Agricultural Cooperative Thrift Society, having been elected on 11. 08. 2018 and he has assumed Office of the President-ship and has been discharging his duties. While so, on 08. 07. 2019, the first respondent has issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation on the ground that some members have requested to bring No Confidence Motion against him on various allegations. In response, the petitioner had also given his explanation dated 18. 07. 2019. However, without any response to the same, the first respondent had appointed the second respondent as Special Officer to convene a special meeting. The first respondent did not give any consideration to the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passed orders on 19. 07. 2019, appointing the Special Officer. Pursuant to the appointment of the Special Officer, namely, the second respondent herein, a consequent notice for convening a special meeting by fixing a date as 26. 07. 2019 was issued. Aggrieved by the same, WP(MD)No. 16600 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner and an order of interim stay was granted. However, upon the information given by the learned Special Government Pleader that the request for No Confidence Motion was withdrawn by the letter dated 03.09.2019, the writ petition was disposed of. Once again, a notice of the first respondent dated 10.09.2019 was served on the petitioner on 14.09.2019, stating that a letter dated 03.09.2019 was given by the members for moving the No Confidence Motion against him on certain allegations. The allegations were identical to the earlier allegations made by the proceedings dated 08. 07. 2019. The said notice dated 10.09.2019 had given three days time for submitting the explanation by the petitioner. Even before the petitioner could submit his explanation, the Special Officer had convened a special meeting and the second respondent had fixed the meeting to be held on 21.09.2019 and notices were sent on 16.09.2019. In the meantime, the fourth respondent one Vellaichamy had informed the petitioner that he had not signed in the request for No Confidence Motion and there are also certain allegations made by the fourth respondent against the respondents 2 and 3. As there is no sufficient notice and time was given by the respondents, the said notices were put to challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the very exercise of the respondents from the beginning is illegal as the earlier proceedings dated 08. 07. 2019 was withdrawn by them on 03.09.2019. However, the proceedings dated 10.09.2019 was issued against the petitioner on the same allegations. It is pointed out that the proceedings dated 10.09.2019, served on the petitioner on 14.09.2019 has clearly established the mala fide act of the official respondents. The proceedings dated 10.09.2019 specifically grants 3 days time for the petitioner to submit his explanation. It is relevant to mention that the said notice was received by the petitioner only on 14.09.2019. Therefore, the said three days has to be taken, commencing from 15.09.2019, which is a Sunday, then the petitioner has got three days till the date 17.09.2019. But, even before the end of three days as mentioned in the notice dated 10.09.2019, the Special Officer convened Special Meeting and the second respondent by the impugned order dated 16.09.2019 fixed the meeting to be held on 21.09.2019. Therefore, the proceedings dated 16.09.2019 is within the period of three days granted to the petitioner for submitting his explanation.