TAMIL NADU PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK ALL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. GENERAL MANAGER MADURAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the arguments of Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Janakiramulu, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the records.

(2.) The writ petition is filed by a registered Trade Union comprising of employees working in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank [for short, 'pacb']. In this writ petition, they are challenging the circular issued by the first respondent Special Officer dated 20.11.2006. In that circular, it was stated that in future, when farm loans are sanctioned, the PACBs functioning under the first respondent need not insist on submission of Form Nos.26 and 27 from the members and it is enough if the 10 (1) chitta or adangal issued though the computer by the offices of the Tahsildar and employees were to observe the other conditions and also to reach the target without fail. Before the issuance of the said circular, in the previous circular, which was issued only four months before the impugned circular, the first respondent Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank informed the PACBs that all the PACBs must conform to Sec.41 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 [for short, 'act'] and also to Rule 68 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Rules, 1988 [for short, 'rules'] and also to obtain Form No.26 from all the members, who were receiving loan and they were requested to maintain the registers in terms of Form No.27 and only after obtaining a declaration from the Sub-Registrar for the securities furnished by the members, the PACBs must give a letter and only after getting a copy of the said letter to the branch of the first respondent Bank, the Branch Managers were directed to release the crop loan. Forms prescribed under Rule 68 of the 1988 Rules and the model Forms Nos.26 and 27 were appended to the circular. The employees of the petitioner Bank were shocked by the disregard to the procedure by the first respondent and sent a protest letter dated 23.11.1986 and requested the District Bank to withdraw the circular. They had stated that such a grant of loan will be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. When they did not receive any reply, they had filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the said order.

(3.) Interim stay was granted by this Court in M. P. (MD) No.2 of 2006 on 22.12.2006 and a petition for vacating the stay was filed by the first respondent along with the counter affidavit dated 22.01.2007.