The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court cannot issue directions that are contrary to the rules and amount to legislating something not intended by the legislature, as per the Chit Funds Act, Section 49.

D. Murugesan, J.

The appellant is Sriram Chits Tamil Nadu (Private) Limited. The fourth respondent by name S.M.Bakir Mohammed approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2049 of 2002 questioning the order of the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department dated 112. 2000 and for a consequential direction to the Secretary to Government to take the appeal of the fourth respondent/writ petitioner filed against the order of the Deputy Registrar of Chits dated 2. 2000.

2. The writ petition came to be filed on the following facts:-

The fourth respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the writ petitioner") was a subscriber to a chit under the Agreement No.72 of 1994 in Suriya Chit Funds, Pollachi, namely, the third respondent and the maturity amount of which was Rs.50,000/- payable in 20 installments i.e., Rs.2500 x 20. He had been regularly paying the installments and during the sixth auction, he bid the auction and took the chit for Rs.35,000/-. According to him, he has paid the entire amount towards the bid and there was no dues. However, Suriya Chit Funds, the third respondent, filed an arbitration case against the writ petitioner before the Deputy Registrar of Chits for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,000/-with interest alleging that the writ petitioner did not pay six installments to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. An award for recovery of money dated 2. 2000 was passed, against which an appeal was filed on 111. 2000 before the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, but the appeal was dismissed by order dated 112. 2000 on the ground that it was not filed in time.

3. The above order was questioned by the writ petitioner and by the impugned order, the learned single Judge quashed the order of the Secretary to Government and remitted the matter back to him for consideration of the appeal on merits. For completion of the facts, it must be also stated that pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, the appeal was also taken up for hearing and was dismissed on merits.

4. While quashing the above order, taking into consideration that number of identical petitions are being filed, the learned Judge has passed the following order in paragraph 28:

"Before parting with the case, this Court deems it essential to issue directions as number of identical petitions are being filed since there is no rule to communicate the award nor there is a rule, which provides for intimation of passing of the award. Hence, every time there is a controversy, the parties moved this Court. To avoid such circumstances, this Court directs the State Government to issue the following directions to all the Registrar of Chits who act as Arbitrators:-

.(i) to intimate the date on which the award is passed;

.(ii) to communicate the copy of the award with necessary endorsements as to date of award, date of despatch by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due; and

(iii) towards expenses incurred in this respect, the claimant before the Arbitrator may be required to provide the cost in advance for forwarding the copy of the award by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due and the said cost could be included in the award for being reimbursed by the judgment debtors.

Such a course alone avoid circumstances of the present nature."

5. As against the order of the learned single Judge in directing the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department to entertain the appeal and dispose of the same on merits, the State has not preferred any appeal. Therefore, that portion of the order had become final.

6. However, the appellant-Sriram Chits Tamil Nadu Private Limited, who was not a party to the writ petition, made an application before this Court seeking leave to appeal on the ground that the three directions in paragraph-28 of the order are not at all in conformity with the rule 49 of the Chit Funds Rules, 1984 and the directions also amounted to inserting something into the rules, which the legislature did not intend. By order dated 3. 2003, in