The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition challenging an enquiry report furnished under section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act dated 10.8.2005 by the 2nd respondent.
2. The ground raised by the petitioner was that the enquiry report was rendered in violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 81 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act read with Rule 104(6)(a) of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules.
3. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted an interim stay on 10.2.2006. Subsequently, the attempt made by the Society to vacate the interim stay could not materialise, since the bundle was misplaced. Therefore, on direction from this Court, the bundle was reconstructed and came to be posted.
4. On behalf of the society, it was contended that the challenge to the Report under section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act is misconceived. Since the said Report is only a fact finding report, no prejudice is caused to any person, whose conduct may not likely to be commended by at this stage.
5. In any event, attention is drawn to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in S.V.K.Sahasramam v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tiruvannamalai Circle, Tiruvannamalai and others reported in (2008) 8 MLJ 231. The Division Bench presided by A.K.Ganguly, C.J (as he then was), in paragraphs 9 to 11 observed as follows:
"9. It is nobody's case that in the instant case, the proceeding under section 81 of the said Act amounts to an enquiry which can be called a departmental or disciplianry enquiry. It cannot be disputed that an enquiry under section 81 of the said Act is an enquiry in public interest in order to find out whether the affairs of a Cooperative Society are conducted legally and whether there are financial improprieties in the matter of conduct of its affairs. Such an enquiry cannot be prima facie compared to an enquiry against any individual employee. It is obviously true that as a follow up action on such enquiry under section 81, various other steps may be taken, viz., surcharge proceedings can be initiated under section 87 and steps can be also taken for initiating criminal proceedings. In the instant case, both these steps have been taken.
10. Before the learned Judge of the writ court, the appellant relied on two learned single Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the case of T.V.Ekambaram v. Cooperative Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Madurai 2000 (2) CTC 659 and in the case of Gabriel v. Deputy Registrar (Housing), Cuddalore (2003) 2 MLJ 624, 2003 (3) CTC 23. In both these two judgments, the provisions of Section 87 of the said Act which relate to surcharge proceedings were examined and the learned Judges in both the aforesaid judgements construed the following proviso to Section 87.
"Provided further that the action commenced under this sub-section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of such commencement or such further period or periods as the next higher authority may permit but such extended period or periods shall not exceed sic months in the aggregage."
Considering the said time limit of six months, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the said period of six months is mandatory.
11. We are constrained to hold that event though no appeal has been taken to us from the said judgments, yet having regard to the well settled legal position which has been referred to hereinabove, the finding of the learned Judges in these two judgments that the period of six months in the second proviso to Section 97 of the said Act is mandatory is not a correct finding in law. We find that even though before the learned Judge of the writ Court, those two judgements of the learned single Bench were cited, the learned Judge of the Writ court was not swayed by those two decisions and came to a correct finding, relying upon the well settled proposition laid down by the Supreme Court as pointed above hereinabove."
6. Though the petitioner had placed strong reliance upon the earlier decision of this Court in T.V.Ekambaram v. Cooperative Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Madurai 2000 (2) CTC 659 and Gabriel v. Deputy Registrar (Housing), Cuddalore (2003) 2 MLJ 624, 2003 (3) CTC 23, all these decisions are referred to by the Division Bench in paragraph 10 set out above. It was also held that those decisions have not rendered correct finding of law.
7. Subsequently, R.Banumathi, J, following the said Division Bench judgment in the decision of G.Panneerselvam and others vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dharmapuri and others reported in (2009) 2 MLJ 901 applied the same yardstick even to the proceedings under section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The said view taken by the learned Judge was found acceptance by a subsequent Division Bench in A.Balaraman and others vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District and others reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1032.
8. In the light of the same, the Writ Petition is misconceived. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. The applications for interim stay as well as vacate stay stand infructuous and accordingly stand closed.