M D KRISHNAMURTHY DIRECTOR TRIPLICANE URBAN CO OPERATIVE Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MADRAS AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment of Subba Rao J. on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the appellant before us for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chepauk, Madras, dated 15-4-1952 and to quash the said order. The appellant was elected director of the Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd., in or about February 1951. On 24-1-1952, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies addressed a letter to the President of the society stating that it had bean brought to his notice that the appellant was a near relation of a clerk or inspector of the society namely one V. R. Rajagopala Aiyar and that under Rule 27 (1) (e) and Rule 27 (2) (e) of the rules framed under the Madras Co operative Societies Act, he had ceased to hold office, and called upon the president to arrange to get another person elected in place of the appellant. There was correspondence consequent on this communication from the Deputy Registrar, and eventually on 26-3-1953, the Deputy Registrar passed proceedings requesting the appellant to show cause why he should not be removed from the board of directors on the ground that he was a near relation of a paid employee, under Rule 37 (1) (e) of the rules. In reply to these proceedings, the appellant submitted that though it was true that Rajagopala Aiyar was related to him as his wife's sister's husband, he had been an employee of the society for over 25 years and that as the election had been held long ago, the said rule would not apply to his case. The Deputy Registrar, however, passed an order on 15-4-1952 holding that the appellant "will cease to be a director of the Triplicane Urban Cooperative Society." The basis of this order, to quote his own words, is as follows:

(2.) It is to quash this order that the appellant filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Judge, Subba Rao J. dismissed the application. Hence this appeal.

(3.) It is not necessary for us to deal with the several points which appear to have been raised before Subba Rao J. and are dealt with by him as we are clearly of opinion that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant granted the relief sought by him, on a short ground. Rule 27 (1) (e) in so far as it is material runs as follows :