SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Mad) 3923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Krishnakumar, J.
K.S. Ramesh – Appellant
Vs.
The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 30202 of 2016, M.P. No. 26197 of 2016, WMP No. 34180 of 2016 and WMP No. 34 of 2016
Decided On : 22-12-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.S. Palaniswamy
For the Respondent: L.P. Shanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader

Headnote:

Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules – Rule 62 – Quashment of Notice – Writ petition is filed for quashing the notice dated 26.08.2016 issued by the second respondent – Petitioner was elected as President of Pitchavaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, Pitchavaram, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District and assumed Office on 09.05.2013. – While that being the position, the first respondent served notice dated 04.08.2016, along with the requisition letters dated 30.06.2016 and 02.08.2016 submitted by eight elected members out of eleven elected members of the Society, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation on or before 22.08.2016. – On receipt of such notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.08.2016. – On receipt of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent vide order dated 24.08.2016 has authorised the second respondent to convene a special meeting of the Board of Directors on 01.09.2016 at 11.00 a.m. in the Office of the Society to facilitate "No Confidence Motion" against the petitioner – Held, Decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner therein (the same learned counsel is also appearing for the petitioner herein and cited the same decisions) and answered the same issue by giving a finding that the conditions prescribed under Rule 62 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 are mandatory. – It is clear that even though there is no difference between the days and clear days, there is a difference in computing/reckoning number of days and number of clear days. – For reckoning number of days the same shall be reckoned "exclusively of the first day and inclusively of the last day, unless the last day happens to fall on Sunday or any public holiday, in which case the number of days shall be reckoned "exclusively of the first day and exclusively also of every such Sunday or public holiday". – Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, for reckoning number of days, in general, first day alone has to be excluded and in case the last day happens to fall on Sunday or any public holiday, then both the first day and last day have to be excluded. – Similarly, for reckoning number of clear days, in general, both the first day and last day have to be excluded and in case the last day happens to fall on Sunday or any public holiday, then those days have also to be excluded – It is clear that for computing number of days ie., "30 days from the date of receipt of requisition" means, the first day starts from the date of receipt of requisition. – But for computing a day, the day must be a whole/complete/entire day of 24 hours between two midnights and not fraction of days covering 24 hours alone and therefore, the day should be reckoned "exclusively of the first day and inclusively of the last day." – Therefore, the phrases "within 30 days from the date of receipt of requisition" refers, "there is no need for 30 clear/whole days, but it does not exceed 30 days (before the expiration of 30th day) and the number of days should be calculated excluding the first day ie., excluding the date of receipt of requisition (since it is not a whole day)". – If date of receipt of requisition (02.08.2016) is excluded, then the 30th day falls at zero hours i.e. the 30th day starts after the expiration of 31.08.2016 and ends on 01.09.2016 midnight. – Therefore, the date fixed for convening the meeting (01.09.2016) is within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of requisition (02.08.2016), as contemplated under Rule 62 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. – Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that there was five clear days in between the date of notice and the date of meeting cannot be accepted and therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the respondents have not complied with three clear days notice, as per Rule 62(3) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. – Writ Petition Allowed

ORDER :

D. Krishnakumar, J.

1. This Writ petition is filed for quashing the notice dated 26.08.2016 issued by the second respondent. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows.

The petitioner was elected as President of Pitchavaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, Pitchavaram, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District and assumed Office on 09.05.2013. While that being the position, the first respondent served notice dated 04.08.2016, along with the requisition letters dated 30.06.2016 and 02.08.2016 submitted by eight elected members out of eleven elected members of the Society, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation on or before 22.08.2016. On receipt of such notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.08.2016. On receipt of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent vide order dated 24.08.2016 has authorised the second respondent to convene a special meeting of the Board of Directors on 01.09.2016 at 11.00 a.m. in the Office of the Society to facilitate "No Confidence Motion" against the petitioner. The second respondent by a notice dated 26.08.2016 informing the petitioner about convening of special meeting of the Board of Directors on 01.09.2016. The aforesaid notice was received by the petitioner on 29.08.2016. Under Rule 62 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 a special meeting of the Board of the society for consideration of resolution expressing 'No Confidence Motion' in the office bearers should be conducted within 30 days from the date of receipt of such requisition from the elected members. But, in the present case, the date fixed by the respondents for the meeting is beyond the time prescribed under Rule 62 (3) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules and also there is no three clear days available between the date of receipt of notice ie., 29.08.2016 and the date fixed for special meeting ie., 01.09.2016, if both days are excluded. Hence, challenging the impugned notice dated 26.08.2016, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this court.

2. The brief facts of the case of the respondents are as follows:-

The petitioner was elected as a Director on 06.05.2013 along with 10 Directors. Among the 11 Directors, the Petitioner was elected as President of the E-2676, Pitchavaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Pitchavaram. There was a conflict between the Petitioner and the rest of the Directors of the society. Hence, the 9 Directors of the society sent a requisition letter on 02.08.2016 seeking 'no confidence motion' against the petitioner. On receipt of the said requisition letter, the first respondent, on 04.08.2016, issued notice to the petitioner along with the said requisition letter seeking explanation. The petitioner, on receipt of the said letter, has given explanation on 22.08.2016 and after receipt of the same, the first respondent, vide his order dated 24.08.2016, authorised Thiru. P. Rajamanikam, Co-operative Sub-Registrar (second respondent) to conduct and preside over the special meeting, on the basis of the requisition letter made by the Board of Directors. The second respondent issued such notice on 26.08.2016 for the meeting to be held on 01.09.2016. Hence, there are three clear days between the date of notice and the date of meeting, as laid down in Rule 62 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. Insofar as the allegation of the petitioner that the earlier requisition dated 30.06.2016 was not taken into consideration by the respondents is concerned, it is averred in the counter that the said requisition dated 30.06.2016 was submitted by third parties and no Directors were present at the time of submission of the said requisition and hence, the requisition dated 30.06.2016 was not considered by the respondents. The respondents fixed the date for convening the meeting on the basis of the representation dated 02.08.2016. Therefore, as laid down under Rule 62 (3) of t

































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top