The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to direct the 1 to 6th respondents to take action against the 7th to 10th respondents to release the NAPCO Thrift deposit and dividend payable to the petitioner, based on the petitioner's representation dated 17.03.2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a member of North Arcot Small Printers' Service Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., (NAPCO) from the year 2006 and is running a printing press. The printing orders received by NAPCO, in turn is provided to its members of the Society. The dividends granted to its members were not granted from 2001. According to the petitioner, subsequent to the resolution passed in the Special General Body held on 01.09.2012, a cheque was prepared for Rs.40,000/- towards dividend, in favour of the petitioner but the amount has been withdrawn by the 7th respondent. Since the petitioner made a complaint to enquire about the unpaid dividend, NAPCO stopped providing government printing works to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 17.03.2016 to the 1st respondent, against the respondents 7 to 10. Since no action is taken, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 6 would submit that this writ petition is not maintainable, in the light of the decision rendered by the large Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of K.Marappan v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, (2006) 4 MLJ 641; He further submitted that the petitioner has submitted his representation only to the 1st respondent/ the District Collector but the appropriate authority is the 5th respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Learned Government Advocate would further submit that the Government have conferred powers of the Registrar under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, to the Director of Industries and Commerce, who is the functional Registrar for Industrial Cooperatives, vide G.O. Ms. No. 8 Industries (SID.1) dated 08.01.1992. Hence, it is made clear that the 5th respondent is the competent authority to consider the complaint made by the petitioner.
4. Considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 6 and the learned counsel for the respondents 7 to 10.
5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, since the petitioner has not made any representation to the competent authority, namely, the 5th respondent, in the light of the decision rendered by the Full Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of K.Marappan, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the 5th respondent, to raise his grievance. If such representation is received from the petitioner, the 5th respondent shall consider the same, on merits and in accordance with law.
6. The writ petition is dismissed, on the above terms. No costs.
21.06.2017 Index: Yes/ No avr To
1. The District Collector Vellore District Vellore – 9.
2. The Registrar of Cooperative No.170 EVR Periyar Road Kilpauk, Chennai – 10.
3. The Joint Registrar Collector Office Campus Vellore -9.
4. The Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society Vellore District, Vellore.
5. The General Manager District Industrial Centre Kangeyanallur Road Gandhi Nagar Vellore – 6.
6. The Commissioner of Industries No.36, South Canal Bank Road Mandavelipakkam, RA Puram Chennai – 28.
D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.
avr
W.P. No. 7134 of 2017
21.06.2017