MAMSAPURAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES VIRUDHUNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12.7.1999 made in Writ Petition No: 19736 of 1998. It is alleged that the petitioner is the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and comes within item No: 3 of Rules 14 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Rules and operates within the area of Mamsapuram, Srivilliputhur Taluk whereas the third respondent also comes within the same class as item 6 and has confined its operation within Srivilliputhur. The third respondent has sought for permission from the respondents 1 and 2 for extension of its operation area. The Reserve Bank of India has permitted the third respondent to extend their area of operation covering 10 kilometres. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the third respondent fall in one category and without following Section 9(l)(d) and Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, which prohibit overlapping with the activities of another Society, an amendment has been introduced ignoring Section 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

(2.) COUNTER has been filed denying the allegations as alleged. It is submitted that though the petitioner and the third respondent fall under the same class, their activities are different. So, the question of considering overlapping and infringement of Section 9(1)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act will not arise.

(3.) IN the instant case, both the learned counsel have not raised the point at initial stage and are now raising. However, a perusal of the facts of the given case reveals that the Registrar has power to allow the amendment. What is to be seen is whether the Registrar had application of mind while allowing this amendment. A perusal of the document reveals that sufficient materials were available before the Registrar so as to pass orders regarding the amendment and as per the Provisions, if it is refused an opportunity is to be given to the other side. It also reveals that there is a provision of appeal under Section 152 of the Act. More so, the amendment was allowed in March, 1998 and no appeal has been filed in time when there is a provision of appeal to investigate the factual aspect. IN view of this we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned single Judge so as to call for any interference. More so, the Reserve Bank of INdia, as stated, has not ultimately granted sanction of the opening of the Branch. Therefore, as stated, no relief as prayed for can be granted. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. The connected C.M.Ps. are also dismissed.