THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.No.25250 of 2005 The Special Officer, The Ambur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., Vadapudupet-635 812.
Vellore District. .. Petitioner vs.
1. V.Munirathinam
2. The Co-operative Sub Registrar (Arbitration & Execution) Directorate of Sugar, having office at No.3, 1st Cross St., Vadivel Nagar, Vellore-2.
3. The Presiding Officer/ Principal District Judge, Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Vellore-2. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent contained in CTA No.19/2004 dated 16.03.2005 made in ARC No.1/2004-2005 dated 26.05.2004 (received on 12.08.2004) and quash the order dated 16.03.2005 and consequently permit the petitioner management to recover the http://www.judis.nic.indetermined loss of Rs.12,512/- from the first respondent herein and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gopinath For Respondents : Mr. V.Selvaraj, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2 No appearance for R1 Tribunal-R3 ORDER This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the third respondent issued in CTA No.19/2004 dated 16.03.2005 in ARC No.1/2004-2005 dated 26.05.2004 (received on 12.08.2004) and consequently permit the petitioner management to recover the determined loss of Rs.12,512/- from the first respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows :-
The Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., established a Primary school and the 1st respondent was working in the school. While quotations were called for purchase of uniform, M/s. Mafatlal S.A. Intex Limited quoted the lowest rates and orders were placed on them. The 1st respondent increased the quantity of the uniform material and caused a loss of Rs.1,66,700/-. On enquiry it was found that the 1st respondent has committed misconduct in connivance with the Chief Accountant, Office Manager and the Selection Grade Assistant of the http://www.judis.nic.in Society. Hence, a memo was issued to all the four officials, making them jointly and severally responsible to a sum of Rs.12,512/-. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued and final order was passed by the petitioner Management ordering recovery of the monetary loss of Rs.12,512/- being the proportionate amount. Inspite of the reminder notice, the 1st respondent did not remit the recovery amount and so arbitration proceedings were initiated in ARC No.1/2004 – 2005, under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The 2nd respondent rejected the execution proceedings by order dated 26.05.2004 (received on 12.08.2004) on the ground that the petitioner Management should have obtained prior permission for purchase of uniform material above Rs. 2 lakhs. Against the said rejection order, the Management preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. By judgment dated 16.03.2005, the appeal was rejected by the 3rd respondent on the ground of limitation. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. According to the petitioner, the claim made by the petitioner is well within the period of limitation and the same was raised before the 2nd respondent. Hence, the rejection order passed by the 3rd http://www.judis.nic.inrespondent is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside.
4. It is seen from the records that the uniform for the school children has been purchased by the 1st respondent and the other employees in the year 1996. At that time, the excess material purchased for school uniform has caused loss to the petitioner Mill to a tune of Rs.12,512/-, jointly and severally. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. On perusal of the claim petition, it is found that the same has been filed on 05.04.2004, after a lapse of nearly eight years. No reasons have been stated in the claim petition or in the present writ petition, for the delay in filing the said application. In the absence of any material for the inordinate delay in filing the claim petition, the 3rd respondent has rightly come to a conclusion and has rejected the claim of the petitioner Management, as barred by limitation. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the judgment, which is passed without any illegality.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
06.09.2017
avr Index:Yes/No To
1. The Cooperative Sub Registrar (Arbitration & Execution) Directorate of Sugar, having office at No.3, 1st Cross St., Vadivel Nagar, Vellore-2.
2. The Presiding Officer/Principal District Judge, Special Tribunal for Co-op. Cases, Vellore-2.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR.J., avr W.P.No.25250 of 2005 06.09.2017