Advocates:
['D GEETHA', '', 'R Diwakaran', 'B POONGKHULALI', 'J Kesavalakshmi', '', 'L P SHANMUGA SUNDARAM SPL G P', '', 'M/S SPL GPCO-OP', 'M/S L P SHANMUGASUNDARAM', 'M/S L P SHANMUGASUNDARAM']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.06.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.No.268 of 2021

and

W.M.P.Nos.341 & 343 of 2021

T.Thamilarasu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by the Additional Secretary,

Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,

Secretariat,

Fort St.Geroge, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies,

No.170, E.Ve.Ra.Periyar Salai,

N.V.Natarajan Maaligai,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

3.Additional Registrar/Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu Cooperative Union,

No.170, E.Ve.Ra.Periyar Salai,

N.V.Natarajan Maaligai,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

4.Additional Registrar/Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank,

Chennai – 600 001.

5.Additional Registrar/The Managing Director,

Chennai Central Cooperative Bank,

215, Prakasam Salai,

Broadway, Chennai – 600 108.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the

records in G.O.Ms.No.5, Cooperative, Food and Consumer Protection

Department, dated 20.01.2020 issued by the 1^st respondent and the

Letter in Na.Ka.No.70538/2017/Thikakupal dated 22.01.2020 issued

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

by the 2^nd respondent quash the same.

For Petitioner : No appearance

For Respondents

: Mr.M.Shajahan

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

No representation on behalf of the petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged this writ petition to

call for the records in G.O.Ms.No.5, Cooperative, Food and

Consumer Protection Department, dated 20.01.2020 issued by the 1^st

respondent and letter in Na.Ka.No.70538/2017/Thikakupal dated

22.01.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

3.Prima facie it appears that the issue is now covered

against the petitioner in terms of the order dated 14.05.2022 in

W.P.Nos.23369 and 25287 of 2021. The operative portion of the

order reads as under:-

“38. If we look at the principle enunciated in

the aforestated cases, it would make abundantly

clear that, the scope of judicial review on policy

matters are very limited. Moreover, whether a

particular type of training Institute is required

for the state or not is necessarily a policy

decision to be taken, of course on the basis of the

expert views given in this regard, by the State

Government. Like that, such kind of training

institute should be at the State level or National

level also again be the policy decision to be taken

by the State Government.

39. If at all, a policy decision already been

taken by the State Government to establish a State

level Training Institute at Yercaud, ofcourse the

successive Government has taken a further policy

decision for specific reasons that, such kind of

State Level Institute is not required in the State

because already two such State Level Institutes are

located and are well doing, moreover spending of a

sum of Rs.61.80 crores, to establish one more State

Level Training Institute is a wasteful expenditure,

those reasons cannot be pierced by this Court by

way of judicial review to give the answer that, the

subsequent policy decision is not correct and the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

earlier one is correct.

40. If an established arbitrariness is

available for the scrutiny before this Court, then

only during the judicial process, the Court can

interfere in any such decision by adopting the

Wednesbury-s principle of arbitrariness.

41. Now the present State Administration has

taken a decision to establish a National Level

Institute at Kodaikanal, for which certain reasons

have been given, ofcourse the said decision is not

questioned by the petitioner in these writ

petitions. Even the said decision cannot be stated

to be a flawed one by this Court, unless and until

the