Requisition made to Registrar in the first instance not proper.

Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.4197/E/98, dated 2.12.1998 and quash the same and pass such further orders.

2. Petitioner is the President of Vaigai Dam Fishermen Co-operative Society, Periakulam Taluk,.Theni District.

3. First respondent had issued a notice to petitioner on 2.12.1998 to consider no confidence motion against petitioner. In that notice, petitioner has been informed that special meeting will be held on 18.12.1998 and he received a requisition from six members of the Board out of seven members. Said notice is challenged in this writ petition as one without jurisdiction.

4. It is the case of petitioner that none of members of Board here made request to him to convene meeting and so long as he has not been given notice, a requisition to first respondent for the first time will not give him jurisdiction to exercise powers under Co-operative Societies Act. Petitioner wanted to quash the impugned notice.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by first respondent it is admitted that six executive members sent a petition to him to convene a meeting to pass no confidence motion against petitioner. There was also another petition on 30.11.1998 signed by six executive members addressed to first respondent for removal of petitioner on the same ground. It is said that in view of requisition submitted by six members, first respondent informed petitioner by communication dated 2.12.1998 for convening a meeting on 18.12.1998 and the same is within his powers. It is said that he had exercised powers under Sec.33(15) of the Act.

6. It is also said that when writ petition was moved, there was an interim order permitting respondent to convene meeting and also take decision, but not to implement the same. It is stated that petitioner was voted out, but the decision was not implemented till date. It prayed for dismissal of writ petition.

7. Before going into the question of law, it is only proper to extract the contents of notice, which is challenged in this writ petition, The same read thus,

8. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit it is said thus,

“With regard to para. 12 of the affidavit, I submit that all the 6 executive committee members have submitted a representation both on 23.11.1998 and 30.11.1998 expressing no confidence upon the President with the 1st respondent calling for convening a meeting. Therefore, under Sec.33(15) of the Act, the 1st respondent called for a meeting on 18.12.1998 wherein 6 of them charged the petitioner against improper conduct of executive committee meeting and all of them decided and expressed no confidence motion against the petitioner.”

9. It is clear from the notice issued to petitioner as well as paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit that action is taken under Sec.33(15) of Co-operative Societies Act. It is admitted by both sides that petitioner as well as authorities are governed by the provisions of the Act and they will have to exercise their powers only under this Act. If power is given under this Act, the same also will have to be exercised only on satisfying conditions provided under the section.

10. Sec.33(14) and (15) are relevant for our purpose and the same is extracted below:

Sec.33(14) the Managing Director in consultation with the President or in his absence the Vice-President of the Board or where there is no Managing Director, the President of such Board, may, at any time, call a special meeting of the board and shall call such a meeting within fifteen days of a requisition in that behalf from-

(i) not less than one-third of the members of the board; or

(ii) the board of the financing bank to which such registered society is indebted; or

(iii) any other registered society of such class as may be prescribed for the purpose; or

(iv) the Registrar, for which a notice of three clear days shall be given to the members of the board.(b) The requisition referred to in clause (a) shall be in writing a