In this civil revision petition, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 31.10.2005, made in C.M.A.No.59 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the order of the respondent in Tha.Va.Ka.No.5/2003-2004/E-1, dated 06.01.2004, are impugned by the revision petitioners.
2. It is found that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli, has passed an order, in Tha.Va.Ka.No.5/2003-2004/E-1, dated 06.01.2004, under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter, referred to as ?the Act?), against the revision petitioners, holding that they are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,90,016/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of realization of the amount to 0.1167 Palayamkottai Co-operative Housing Society. It is found that impugning the said order the revision petitioners preferred C.M.A.(CS) No.59 of 2004, before the Appellate Authority / Special Tribunal for Co-operative Societies Cases (District Court), Tirunelveli and the Appellate Authority had also, on a consideration of the materials placed before it, confirmed the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli, above referred.
3. Briefly stated, it is found that the revision petitioners, who are the office bearers of Palayamkottai Co-operative Housing Society, had misused their official position and accordingly, it is stated that they had acquired certain plots / sites from Tirunelveli Central Co-operative Bank Employees Housing Society for the price fixed and thereafter, without obtaining the permission from the Registrar (Housing Society) and also not considering the prevailing market value and fixing the rate at a marginal price above the actual cost of the said plots / sites had alienated the same to the alleged members of the Society and thereby, it is stated that the revision petitioners had caused loss to the Society as well as the Exchequer of the Government by way of stamp duty amounting to Rs.5,90,916/- and 59,203/- respectively. Further, it is stated that contrary to the rules, they had also allotted more extent of land to the members S.Kumarasamy, A.Senthilrajan, S.Ganapathi and S.Muthu Kumarasamy and further they had also not verified whether permission of the Corporation has been duly obtained and further they had also alienated the plots / sites to certain alleged members, who had not actually become members of the Society on the date of alienation and thereby, proceedings have been initiated, under Section 87 of the Act, against the revision petitioners holding that they are jointly and severally liable for the above loss caused to the Society as well as the State Government.
4. It is found that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by the impugned order, had taken into consideration all the materials placed and accordingly, held that the revision petitioners have, without any basis and also contrary to the rules, alienated the plots / sites indiscriminately without taking adequate safeguards to protect the interest of the Society as well as the State Government and accordingly held that they are jointly and severally liable for the loss caused and directed that the said loss is liable to be paid by them and to be recovered from them with interest. A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies would go to show that he had, in all minute details, considered the various irregularities and violations committed by the revision petitioners and accordingly, held that they are jointly and severally liable for the loss caused to the Society as well as the State Government.
5. Similarly, even the Appellate Authority had also in the appeal preferred by the revision petitioners taken into consideration the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties and also on the basis of the materials placed held that as determined by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the revision petitioners have committed various irregularities and violations and accordingly, dismissed the appeal preferred by them. It is also seen that the Appellate Authority had also rejected the attempt made on the part of the revision petitioners to mark certain additional document as additional evidence during the course of appeal proceedings in support of their case.
6. In this civil revision petition, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is unable to place any material to hold that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies as well as the Appellate Authority had committed any error or mistake in fixing the responsibility of the irregularities and violations on the revision petitioners and holding them jointly and severally liable for the loss caused to the Society as well as the State Government.
7. It is found that the revision petitioners though being the office bearers of the Palayamkottai Co-operative Housing Society have not taken adequate safeguards and measures to ensure that the said Society had been duly enrolled with the Tirunelveli Central Co-operative Bank Employees Housing Society in accordance with the rules and accordingly, found by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies as well as the Appellate Authority that this had been done, without any authority and in violation of the rules prevailing and when the liquidator himself has no authority to enroll the Palayamkottai Co-operative Housing Society with Tirunelveli Central Co- operative Bank Employees Housing Society, which had been already dissolved, it is seen that the above action of the revision petitioners or the approval of the same by them is only to somehow or the other alienate the plots / sites to the members with a view to enrich themselves and benefit the others unlawfully.
8. Further, it is also found that the revision petitioners had also alienated 13 plots / sites to the members without ensuring that the same had been alienated for the correct value prevailing in the market. On the other hand, it is found they had alienated the said plots / sites for a meagre price and thereby, it is found that they had caused loss to the Society as well as the State Government. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the plots / sites alienated are still lying waste and not able to be detected as such and further under the control of the Society even now and therefore, there is no loss to the Society, however, when the same had been alienated by the revision petitioners in their capacity as the office bears of the Society concerned without following the rules and also without ensuring the interest of the Society concerned, it is found that the alienation as found by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies as well as the Appellate Authority had been made in flagrant violation of the rules of the Society and also against the law.
9. Further, the materials also point out that the office bearers of the Society i.e., the revision petitioners, without following any rhyme or reason and also contrary to the rules, enlisted the members in the Society and even before they are enrolled had alienated the plots / sites to them and this was also found to be illegal action on the part of the revision petitioners so as to enrich themselves and the above findings by the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies and the Appellate Authority does not call for any interference.
10. In addition to that it is also noted that the revision petitioners have also allotted more extent of land to certain persons than they are entitled to in contravention of the rules and thus, it is noted that the revision petitioners have clearly abused their official position as the office bearers of the Society and thereby alienated more extent of lands to certain persons and this action cannot be held to be reasonable or in the interest of the Society concerned. The findings with reference to the same rendered by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli as well as the Appellate Authority also merit acceptance.
11. It is also found that the revision petitioners moved an application before the Appellate Authority to mark certain document as additional evidence in support of their case. However, the Appellate Authority has rightly observing that the revision petitioners have not established that their application conformed to the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and they have also not placed acceptable cause for not producing the document before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, has discountenanced the request of the revision petitioners for reception of the additional evidence.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, in support of his contentions placed reliance upon the decision reported in 2013-4-L.W.249 [K.Govindasamy vs. Ms.A.Rajamani & Others]. However, considering the above discussions, when it is found that the revision petitioners have committed various irregularities and violations pointed out in the impugned orders with a view to enrich themselves and cause loss to the Society as well as the State Government, it is found that as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, the above decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
13. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli as well as the Appellate Authority by their proper appreciation of the materials placed before them and also on a consideration of the materials placed in the right perspective both factually as well as legally found and correctly held that it is only the revision petitioners, who have committed various irregularities and violations in the alienation of the plots / sites to the members with a view to enrich themselves and also thereby caused loss to the Society as well as the Exchequer of the State Government and therefore, rightly held that the revision petitioners are jointly and severally liable for the loss sustained on account of their illegal action and in such view of the matter, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the findings and conclusions of the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli and the Appellate Authority, holding that the revision petitioners are jointly and severally responsible for the loss sustained. The impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity as such so as to warrant any interference from this Court.
14. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 31.10.2005, made in C.M.A.No.59 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the order of the respondent in Tha.Va.Ka.No.5/2003-2004/E-1, dated 06.01.2004, are confirmed and the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
1.The Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli.
.