Consultation with the financing bank is a mandatory requirement before passing an order of dissolution of a co-operative society under Section 72(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.

ORDER :- The petitioner-society is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 11-6-1971, in and by which the first respondent dissolved the petitioner-society under Section 72 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and appointed a special officer to manage the affairs of the Society. In or about October 1969, the second respondent, feeling doubtful about the proper administration of the petitioner-society, directed an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act, whereby the working and financial condition of the petitioner-Society was sought to be investigated. Further processing of the enquiry which was started in October 1970, was cancelled and instead an Inspector was appointed under Section 66 authorising him to inspect the books of the petitioner-society and report as to the financial condition of the society and its working. It is common ground that the Inspector submitted such a report under Section 66 of the Act only on 3-5-1971. The financing bank of the petitioner-society is the Kanyakumari District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Nagarcoil. They have been brought on record, since their presence was felt necessary for a proper adjudication of the main issue that has cropped up in the instant case. Learned counsel for the financing bank says that the financing bank, independently and on its own volition, appointed an officer of its own to go into the working of the society which was indebted to the bank and, after obtaining a detailed report from their officer who was specially appointed for the purpose of investigating into the affairs of the petitioner-society, the financing bank resolved on 29-4-1971, that the affairs of the petitioner-society were not satisfactory and a request was made to the Registrar to dissolve the petitioner-society. A copy of this resolution was forwarded to the second respondent. It was on this that the second respondent started a further action under Section 72 of the Act. What the first respondent did was that, on the basis of the resolution of the financing Bank and without any more consultation with it, passed the challenged order superseding the society and appointed a special officer to manage the affairs of the society. It is as against this action that the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The contention of Mr. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner is. that the proceeding under Section 72 of the Act being of a peculiar nature and indeed being one reflecting upon the integrity and working of a registered Society under the Act, every limb of the sub-section should be satisfied before a final order under Section 72(1) of the Act could be made. Developing this contention, it is said that there was no consultation made by the first respondent, when he took action under sub-section (1) of Section 72, as there does not appear on record that the Registrar consulted the financing bank to which the society was indebted. What is said is that the Registrar took it for granted that the report, in the nature of resolution, forwarded by the financing bank, is by itself a substitute for the process of consultation which he should independently make under Section 72 (6) of the Act. Such an assumption, it is said, is not a thing expected of the statutory authority functioning under Section 72, which authority would ultimately issue an order of supersession against the society complained of. Learned counsel for the financing bank, however, would state that, though there was no consultation as such by the Registrar after he mooted action under Section 72 (1) (a) yet the communication of the resolution passed by the financing Bank on 29-4-1971, would serve as sufficient hypothesis on which the Registrar could lay his hand to act finally under Section 72 (1) to supersede a registered Society. Learned Government Pleader says that, from the records, it is not clear whether the first respondent, before he took action under Section 72 (1) of the Act, consulted t