JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Pushpa Sathyanarayana.J., )

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.21269 of 2019 dated 01.09.2020.

2.The appellant/writ petitioner has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.21269 of 2019, challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Dispute No.81/2019/Sa.Pa dated 25.06.2019.

3.The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petitioner, found that the petitioner has alleged that the entire election was vitiated due to the violation of Rule 52(5)(1)(A)(1) and Rule 52(5)(11)(A)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Socities Rules. It appears that the objection was raised by the writ petitioner by way of Election Petition filed under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Socities Act, and the same was rejected by the 3rd respondent, vide order impugned in the writ petition.

4.The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is an effective alternative remedy available for the petitioner under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Socities Act (hereinafter referred as “The Act“) by filing a Revision before the concerned Registrar. Without exhausting the said remedy, the writ petitioner has approached the Writ Court for the relief. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, a liberty was granted to the petitioner to workout his remedy by filing a Revision under Section 153 of the Act.

5.The appellant herein without following the direction given by the learned Single Judge, has preferred the present appeal.

6.The learned Government Counsel submitted that the 3rd respondent filed the counster affidavit before the learned Single Judge stating that the election notification with election schedule was issued on 19.09.2018 in Dinamani news paper and the draft voters list was published calling for the objections, if any, for addition and deletion of the names in the voters list on before 27.09.2018. Pursuant to the same, the writ petitioner has not raised any objections, but, filed the writ petition. Therefore, the case of the writ petitioner is not sustainable either in law or facts.

7.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Government counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 12.

8.The writ petitioner was one of the members of the Election Board of the 4th respondent Society and he had already contested in the election succesfully and completed his term. Therefore, he is well aware of the members list of Electoral College. The 3rd respondent, in his order dated 25.06.2019, has also specifically mentioned that the writ petitioner has not raised any objections at the relevant point of time. It will be appropriate to extract the order passed by the 3rd respondent. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:

thjpapd; Tw;wpd;go 15/09/2018 njjpapl;l 4 “

tJ gpujpthjp r';f nju;jy; mll; tiz mwptpgi; ga[k; 15/12/2018 njjpapy; nju;e;bjLf;fg;gll; ntl;ghsu;fis mwptpj;jija[k; uj;J bra;J r';f epht; hf FGit fiyj;J 4tJ gpujpthjpf;fhd r';fj;jpw;fhd njh;jiy elj;jk; tifapy; thjpahy; mWjpapl;L mjw;Fhpa Mtz';fs; VJk; M$u;glj;jptpy;iy/ jhth bjhlu;ghf cupa tpsf;f';fs; mspf;ft[k; Mtz';fs; ghu;itapltk[ ; ,U jug;gpdUf;F nghjpa mtfhrk; mspf;fg;gll; J bjhlu;g[ilatu;fspy; thf;F K:yj;jpida[k; nju;jy; bjhlu;ghd Mtz';fs; guprPypj;j tifapYk; khtll; njh;jy; mYtyupd; mwptpgg; pd;go r';fk; thf;fhsu; glo; ay; nfhUupikfnsh my;yJ guprPyidapd;nghJk; Mln; rgizfs; kWg;g[f;fs; mspj;jplt[k; fhy mtfhrk; mwptpgg; [ bra;ag;glL; njh;jy; eltofi; ffs; eilbgwW; s;s epiyapYk; thjp ,j; nju;jypy; jFjpahd ntl;ghsuhf mwptpg;g[ bra;ag;glL; nju;jypy; nghlo; apid vjpu;bfhz;Ls;s epiyapYk; nju;jy; eilbgwW; 66 ehl;fs; fHpj;J thf;Ffs; vz;zp nju;jy; Kot[ mwptpgg; [ bra;a[k; tiuapYk; nju;jy; eltofi; f fhy';fspy; ,th; ,j;nju;jy;

eltofi; ffspy; Ml;nrgiz bjuptpj;jikf;F nghJkhd Mtz';fis thjp M$u;gLj;jhj epiyapYk; thjpapd; jhth rll; uPjpahf bry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd Kot[ bra;J jhthtpid js;Sgo bra;J Mizaplg;gLf