Consultation with the financing bank under Section 72 (6) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, is necessary before passing the final order of supersession under Section 72 (1), but not before issuing the show cause notice.

ORDER:- The petitioner was the president of the Perambalur Co-operative Primary Land Development Bank, Perambalur. He had been elected as a director and later as president on 18-5-1974. By a show cause notice dated 22-5-1975, the first respondent called upon the petitioner and other directors of the bank to show cause as to why the bank should not be superseded under Section 72 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. It is to quash that notice that the above writ petition has been filed.

2. According to the petitioner before issuing the impugned show cause notice the first respondent did not make any consultation with the financing bank as contemplated by Section 72 (6) of the Act and, therefore, the show cause notice is invalid. It is also his case that the impugned show cause notice proceeds on the basis that the irregularities referred to in the notice have already been established and this shows that the first respondent has already made up his mind to supersede the society under Section 72 (1) and that the issue of the show cause notice is a mere formality. The petitioner further contends that the first respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 72 (1) by issuing show cause notice at the instance of his political opponents and, therefore his action in issuing the show cause notice should be taken to be a mala fide one. It is also stated that the first respondent has got considerable bias against the petitioner in that petitioner had filed more than one writ petition before this court questioning certain actions of the first respondent and, therefore, even if the matters referred to in the show cause notice were to be enquired into, it should be by a different officer. It is also contended that most of the irregularities relate to an earlier period when the present society did not come into existence and, therefore, the show cause notice, so far as it relates to those irregularities, should be taken to be bad.

3. As regards the first contention regarding the requirement as to consultation with the financing bank contemplated by Section 72 (6), in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the financing bank was consulted by sending a letter on 19-5-1975. It is not the first respondent's case that he received any communication from the financing bank in answer to the said letter. Even if it is taken that the first respondent sent a communication to the financing bank that will not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement as to consultation. Perhaps realising this position the first respondent has taken the stand in the counter-affidavit that the consultation is required only for the passing of the order of supersession and not for issuing a show cause notice. Mr. N.C. Raghavachari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that having regard to the language of Section 72 (6) the first respondent has to consult the financing bank before taking any action under Section 73 (1) including the action of issuing the show cause notice, that by issuing the show cause notice the first respondent had initiated the proceedings under Section 72 (1) and that for such initiation of the proceedings the consultation with the financing bank is necessary.

4. But on a due consideration of the matter, I am inclined to think that, having regard to the object of the provision under Section 72 (6) which requires consultation of the financing bank, such consultation is necessary before the final order is passed under Section 72 (1). At the stage of the issue of the above-show cause notice no one knows as to what is going to happen ultimately. It is only when the first respondent makes up his mind after due enquiry in relation to the irregularities referred to in the show cause notice, that the financing bank has to be consulted with regard to the action proposed to be taken. If the consultation is before the issue of show cause notice and if the first respondent ultimately finds that the irregu