K V SHANTHI PARAMAKUDI Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and 96 weavers intended to start a Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society in the year 2001. Accordingly, an application dated 03.08.2001 was made to the Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Paramakudi / the respondent herein for registration of the society in the name of "Makkal Thilagam M.G.R. Weavers Co-operative Society". THE General Manager of Ramanathapuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., by his proceedings dated 22.01.2003 accorded permission for such registration of the society. THEreafter, the application could not be processed further in view of the ban imposed by a Circular issued by the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Chennai dated 08.10.2002, banning registration of new societies. Pursuant to the said Circular, the petitioner was also informed by the respondent Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles in his proceedings dated 24.02.2003 that application for registration of the society is kept pending. Subsequently, the ban was lifted on 20.09.2006. Even before that, the petitioner once again made a request on 24.07.2006 for registration of the society. However, the said requested was rejected by the impugned order of the respondent dated 26.08.2006 on the ground that the petitioner should make a fresh application by complying with other formalities. This order is put in issue in this writ petition.

(2.) MR. R. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the wake of provisions of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), there is a deeming provision i.e., if the Registrar refused to register a society and its bye-laws, he shall communicate his decision within a period of 120 days and in the event, no such order is passed, the society shall be deemed to have been registered after the said period of 120 days. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the Society has come into existence, but only the registration is kept in abeyance due to the ban and in view of the above, directing to submit a fresh application is contrary to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act as the earlier application should alone be considered for registration.

(3.) THE facts that are not in dispute are that there was an application made by the petitioner on 03.08.2001 and no objection was also accorded for registration of the society on 22.01.2003. As in the meanwhile ban has been imposed, the application was kept in abeyance as could be seen from the proceedings of the respondent dated 24.02.2003. That proceeding is not an order of refusal to register the society as contemplated under Section 9(2) of the Act. Sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4) of Section 9 of the Act reads as follows:-