BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.09.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.7710 of 2020 and WMP(MD) Nos.7199 & 7200 of 2020 S.Murugesan Petitioner Vs.

1.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, NV Natarajan Maligai, E.V.R.Periyar Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

2.The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Kanyakumari Region at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nagercoil Circle, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

4.S.Krishnakumar, President, Aralvaimozhi Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Credit Society, Aralvaimozhi – 629 702 Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to impugned order of the 3^rd respondent Deputy Registrar in Na.Ka.2659/19,thae.vae.sa dated 21.02.2020, quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to disqualify the 4^th respondent herein from the basic membership of the petitioner's society namely, Aralvaimozhi Premary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society, Aralvaimozhi, Kanyakumari District as per Section 23(2) (e) and Rule 35 of the TamilNadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies rules, 1988 respectively. For Petitioner : M/s.T.Cibi Chakraborthy For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Angappan Government Advocate For R4 :Mr.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

2.The writ petitioner is a member of Aralvaimozhi Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Credit Society (hereinafter referred to as 'society'. The fourth respondent S.Krishnakumar is the President of the said Society. The petitioner submitted a petition for disqualifying the fourth respondent from the primary membership of the Society. Since the said petition was not being disposed of, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)

No.17084 of 2019 and this Court by order dated 24.01.2020, directed the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose it of. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the third respondent conducted an enquiry and by the impugned order dated 21.02.2020, rejected the petitioner's representation. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition came to be filed.

3.The core allegation of the writ petitioner is that the fourth respondent is engaging indirectly in a business, that is similar to that of the Society, of which he is the President. The learned counsel reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the order impugned in the Writ Petition does not warrant any interference.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent argued at length and wanted this Court to sustain the rejection order. The primary contention of the fourth respondent is that the disqualification charge made against him is not at all attracted. It is because, the fourth respondent had not undertaken either directly or indirectly any business that is similar to that of the Society of which he is the president since 2013. During his tenure, the Society witnessed very good development and that is why he had been re-elected also. There is absolutely nothing on record to even remotely indicate that the fourth respondent by his conduct acted in a manner that was prejudicial to the interest of the Society.

5.1.The learned counsel further submitted that the fourth respondent's wife Mrs.T.Bindhu is running Pawn Broking business independently on her own and not even a single pie had been lent to any member of the Society. The learned counsel would also argue that merely because he had been shown as the nominee, that would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the fourth respondent is engaged in the said business. The purpose of nominating a pe