The main legal point established in the judgment is the non-maintainability of Writ Petitions against a Cooperative Society and the need to pursue matters such as the payment of subsistence allowance through the appropriate authorities.

1. The petitioners are admittedly employees of IMPCOPS Limited at Chennai 41. They were placed under suspension. The 2nd respondent Medical Practitioners Cooperative Society is governed by the provisions of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The petitioners were placed under suspension. In these Writ Petitions, they have challenged an order of the Secretary incharge dated 16.12.2011 signed on 17.12.2011, in which the petitioners were informed that the management pursuant to the suspension are proposing to appoint an enquiry officer. It is also stated that the for the purpose of extending subsistence allowance, it is unnecessary to raise any dispute and if the petitioners signed the register kept at the gate, they will be paid subsistence allowance as per law.

2. The contention of the petitioners was that subsequent to the said order, an enquiry officer has been appointed. The enquiry officer after listing out the charges informed the petitioners that the enquiry will be conducted on the next adjourned date and in case the petitioners fail to participate in the enquiry, the proceedings are likely to proceed in the absence of the petitioners. Challenging these two communications, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions. The prayer of the petitioners was that the proceedings cannot go on since the proceedings pending before the Payment of Subsistence Allowance is to be completed and they also request for replacement of the enquiry officer.

3. It is not clear as to how such Writ Petitions are maintainable, especially when the 2nd respondent is the Cooperative Society and run by its own Board of Directors. Such Writ Petitions are not maintainable in the light of the larger bench judgment of this Court in K.Marappan vs. Deputy Director of Cooperative Society, Namakkal reported in 2006 (4) CTC 689.

4. In the present cases, even the impugned communications show that the Society was willing to pay subsistence allowance. However, the petitioners are not inclined to accept the conditions imposed as they have already rightly moved the Subsistence Allowance Authorities. The question of forestalling the enquiry on that ground will not arise. Ultimately, if they succeed before the subsistence allowance authorities, the Society is bound to pay subsistence allowance. Even otherwise, the impugned order indicates that the society is inclined to pay subsistence allowance as per the Rules.

5. Even subsequent to the Mariappans case, an attempt was raised to contend that non-payment of subsistence allowance would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore a Writ Petition will lie. The view taken by a learned Judge in Marappans case was referred for determination by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in T.K.Ananda Sayanan vs. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vellore Region, Vellore and another reported in 2007 (5) MLJ 637. In paragraph 16 of the said judgment, the Full Bench observed as follows:

"(16.) For every alleged or imagined invasion of his rights, an employee of a Cooperative Society cannot move the writ court on the ground that his rights under Article 21 have been infringed. The effect of the Supreme Court cases cited in K.Marappan vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal case (supra) and the propositions set down in K.Marappan v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal case (supra) cannot be set at naught merely by mentioning Article 21, even if the order is illegal."

6. Subsequent to the decision of the larger bench judgment in Marappans case, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the maintainability of a Writ Petition in respect of a Cooperative Society in more than one judgment.

7. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Gurcharan Singh v. Registrar, Coop. Societies, H.P., reported in (2005) 7 SCC 565, at page 566 in paragraph 2 observed as follows :

"(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted with reference to a seven