ORDER

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

2. The writ petitioner was elected as President of Q-1902 Alangulam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Alangulam, in the year 2019. One Parveen Raj gave a complaint that the writ petitioner herein is disqualified from being a member of the Board as well as the President of the Society since her brother-in-law is working as a Paid employee of the very same Society. Since no action was taken, he filed W.P(MD)No.25331 of 2019. Vide order dated 10.12.2019, a direction was given to the respondent herein for disposal of the said complaint. Pursuant to the said direction given by this Court, the respondent herein took up the complaint as C.D.No.2 of 2019. When the notice was ordered to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner entered appearance through the counsel but did not file any counter. In the meanwhile, Parvin Raj chose to withdraw the complaint itself. Even though the complainant Parvin Raj took back the complaint, the respondent herein went ahead with the enquiry and passed the impugned order dated 29.02.2020 disqualifying the writ petitioner from the membership of the Board as well as the President of the Society. Questioning the same, this writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner took me through the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. He pointed out that it is only the Board which can take cognizance of the matter. Only in the event of failure of the part of the Board to do so, the Registrar can take up the issue. But the Registrar as per Section 34(6) of the Act will have to give opportunity to the writ petitioner. In this case, following the withdrawal of complaint by Parveen Raj, the matter should have been closed. If the respondent wanted to take any suo motu action, then the petitioner ought to have been specifically granted opportunity of hearing before passing any final order. Since the procedure has not been complied with the impugned order is bad in law.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that no case for interference has been made out.

5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

6. Section 34(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 states that no person shall be eligible for being elected or nominated as a member of the Board of any Registered Society, if he is in such near relation, as may be prescribed of a paid employee of such registered Society. Rule 63 of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 catalogues the near relations of the paid employee for the purpose of disqualification for membership of the Board. As many as 20 categories have been set out in the said rules. Rule 63(9) states that sister’s husband, son and daughter would fall within the scope of the expression “near relations”. In this case, the impugned order mentions that Thiru.Selvam is working as a Clerk in the subject Co-operative Society. His spouse, Mrs.Vasanthi is none other than the biological sibling / sister of the writ petitioner Mrs.Uma Devi. Therefore, on the very face of it, the disqualification set out in Section 34(1)(a) of the Act read with Rule 63(9) of the Rule is squarely attracted. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of the violation of principles of natural justice. Rule 34(3) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 authorizes the Board of the Registered Society to take action regarding disqualification either suo motu or on an application made by any person. Section 34(6) of the Act is as follow:

“34.(6) Whenever the Registra