V SUNDARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent, made in G. O. Ms. No. 16 Commercial Taxes and Religions Endowment Department dated 11-1-1996 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of 2nd respondent, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : The third respondent herein, a chit company filed A. O. P. No. 77/90 (Arbitration Original Petition) on the file of 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner stood as guarantor in respect of a chit transaction. The petitioner has filed a written statement stating that he never stood as guarantor and denied the execution of guarantee letter. It is also stated that his signature was forged for which he filed an application in I. A. No. 2/94 praying the second respondent to issue summons to the hand writing expert of the Tamil Nadu Forensic Laboratory, Madras-4. The third respondent filed a counter stating that the signature in the guarantee letter is only that of the petitioner. The second respondent by order dated 13-9-1994, rejected his request mainly on the ground "that the matter is pending for 3 years. Against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 13-9-1994, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 before the first respondent. The first respondent without following the provisions, particularly Rule 59 of Chit Funds Rules, 1984 and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and personal hearing, dismissed the appeal; hence the present writ petition.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 have not chosen to file counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. The third respondent alone has filed a counter affidavit reiterating their stand taken before the 2nd respondent.