Consultation with the financing bank under Section 88(6) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 is mandatory and must be done before passing an order of supersession. The opportunity of making a representation under Section 88(1) of the Act includes a reasonable opportunity before final orders are passed.

1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certionari to call for the records relating to Roc. 9000 of 1997/ A-2, dated 9. 1997 of the 2nd respondent, and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the society was formed in the year 1956 for the purpose of giving loans to members so as to enable them to purchase agricultural instruments and domestic items in and around Vallipattu area. After a long time, election was held for various Co-operative Societies, and the defendant contested for the office of the Vice President and took charge on 16. 1997. On the strength of the financial services of the society, it is classified a s a ‘B’ class Cooperative Society containing over 2000 members. Before 1997, the affairs of the society was in the hands of the Government, and was not properly managed. In order to revitalize the society, the dependent alleges that various records were perused and it was found that the secretary of the society one Anbarasu has misappropiated huge funds, and decided to take action. A notice was issued to him calling upon him to explain as to why action should not be taken against him for the misappropriation of funds and a charge menu was also issued against him on 12. 1997 and 4. 1997. Though sufficient time was given to him to submit his explanation, he did not choose to do so, and the Board was constrained to dismiss him from service, and a resolution was passed on 24. 1997, removing him from the post of secretary of the Society. Anbarasu filed a revision before the 2nd respondent, and even without notice to the petitioner, the revision was allowed on 25. 1997, and Anbarasu was directed to be reinstated. On coming to know about the facts, a review petition was moved before 2nd respondent, bringing to his notice that Society ought to have been given an opportunity before adverse orders are passed against it. But the review petition was dismissed without adherence to the principles of Natural Justice. Even though the order was illegal, the secretary was reinstated on 30.5.1997. It is said that the petitioner has also filed a revision before the 2nd respondent and the same was dismissed on 8. 1997; the copy of order was received by it on 18. 1997. In the meanwhile, the Society received a notice under Section 88(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (in short ‘Act’), to show cause as to why the Board should not be superseded. The reasons stated for superseding the Society are as follows:

.(1) The secretary of the society was dismissed without notice;

.(2) The order of the Respondents directing the society to reinstate Anbarasu was not obeyed;

(3) Five persons were inducted without following the procedures laid down under the

Act;

.(4) A pro-term daily wage worker was appointed as secretary in charge; and

.(5) Audit report was not submitted after considering the objections

.(6) raised for the year 1993-94.

3. A detailed reply was sent on 18. 1997, stating that Anbarasu was dismissed only after strictly following the procedures and that he has been reinstated immediately after the receipt of the orders of the respondents. It was further said that the appointment of Secretary was necessary and the society could not function without a secretary and the pro-term Secretary, since he is a graduate with Co-operative training . The Society was not in a position to submit revised audit report for the year 1993-94, since such a report was never served on the Board. It is said, that after sending this reply, the petitioner expected that the 1st respondent would drop all the proceedings. But to the shock and surprise, an order superseding the Board was passed by the 2nd respondent.

4. In the various grounds challenging the impugned order, it is said that the order is violating the principles of Natural Justice, and the 2nd respondent ought to have given opportunity to the petitione