S. PALANIVEL Vs. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

(2.) THOUGH the matter is listed for considering the question of direction, since the question involved in the direction petition as well as the main writ petition is same, and counter also has been filed, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal on the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioner is a member of the 5th respondent society. He has challenged the action taken by the 4th respondent under Section 137 of the Tamil Nadu Co -operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing the winding up of the 5th respondent Registered Society. It is not disputed that the 4th respondent has issued proceedings to take action under Sec. 137(2)(b) for winding up of the Society. The said provision is extracted hereunder:

(3.) THOUGH several contentions have been raised by the petitioner, it is not necessary to deal with all the contentions, as in my opinion, the writ petition has to be disposed of on a short point relating to the applicability of Sec. 137(2)(b) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the Society was registered and came into being on 25.1.1994. Paper publication was made on 20.12.1995 notifying the intention of the Registrar under Sections 137 for taking steps for winding up of the Society. It is not disputed that the decision of the winding up was taken place on the ground that the society has seized to work. The Act clearly lays down that for the purpose of the said Section 137(2)(b), the only criteria is "Cease to work" which means cessation of primary activities of the society for atleast two consecutive years. Since the society was formed only on 25.1.94, it is not understood as to how notice could be published in December of 1995 for winding up even though the two years period as expressly mentioned under the section had not elapsed. Therefore, the 4th respondent could not have taken action for winding up of the society. It is obvious that the period indicated in the explanation is to the effect that the primary activities of the society had not been carried out for atleast two consecutive years must be considered with reference to the date of notice. In other words, if the society ceased to work, ie., to say, if there is cessation of primary activities of the society for atleast two consecutive years on the date of notice , then only action as contemplated under section 137(2)(b) can be taken. In such view of the matter, the order regarding the winding up of the society is quashed. It is not in dispute that Special Officer had been appointed . Therefore he shall take the charge and he should take steps to see that the society works in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and Bye - Laws framed thereunder.