(1.) THE petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent dated 21.11.2001 and to quash the same.
(2.) THE petitioner states that he was working as a Secretary of the second respondent management being a Co -operative society. The second respondent, the Special Officer had assumed charge on 25.05.2001 having been appointed under Section 89 of the Tamil Nadu Co -operative Societies Act, 1983. The impugned order is an order of suspension passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has questioned the order of suspension on several grounds and considering the nature of disposal of the writ petition, it is sufficient to indicate that in the impugned order of suspension, there is no mention of public interest as warranting suspension of the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel also refers on the judgment of S. Ramalingam, J. in ARUMUGHAM,M.S. v. JOINT REGISTRAR, SALEM REGON, SALEM -7, 1991 W L.R., 636 in support of his contention that the order itself should indicate that the suspension necessitated in public interest or in the interest of the institution.