IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

W.A.No.1274 of 2019

S.Subbiah

.. Appellant

-vs-

1. The President

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum Chennai (North)

No.212, R.K.Mutt Road, First Floor

First Floor, Mylapore

Chennai 600 004 now at behind TNPSC

TNPSC Road, V.O.C.Nagar

Park Town, Chennai 600 003

2. S.Subramanian

.. Respondents

Prayer:

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against

the order dated 06.12.2018 made in W.P.No.24316 of 2005.

Prayer in WP.No.24316 of 2005:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the

records relating to O.P.No.188 of 2005 on the file of the first

respondent herein and to quash the same.

For Appellant

:

Mr.A.V.Arun for

M/s Elizabeth Ravi

For Respondents

:

Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar for R2

R1-District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Chennai (North)

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)

Mr.S.Subbiah, who is presently a designated Senior Advocate,

practicing both in the Principal Seat and Madurai Bench of this

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

Court, has filed this appeal, aggrieved by the order of

dismissal of the writ petition challenging the complaint in

O.P.No.188 of 2005 made against him by the second respondent

before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai

(North), on the ground that the professional service rendered by

him as an Advocate at the relevant point of time cannot be

brought under the term 'deficiency in service', giving a cause

of action for making out a case before the Consumer fora.

2. Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submitted that when the second respondent approached the

appellant on 5.5.2003 during the summer holidays with a request

to appear for him as against the order of suspension dated

9.2.2002 passed against him, accepting the brief as an Advocate

at the relevant point of time, filed the Writ Petition No.16909

of 2003 on his behalf and while arguing the case, two Full Bench

judgments were cited before the learned Judge hearing the said

writ petition opposing the maintainability of the writ petition,

wherein the Full Bench of this Court has repeatedly held that

the order of suspension or order of removal or order of

termination or order of demotion passed by an officer of a co-

operative society, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, a

Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Thanikachalam M.

and others v. Maduranthakam Agricultural Producers Co-operative

Marketing Society and others, 2001-I-LLJ 285, has also clearly

and explicitly held that no writ petition is maintainable

against co-operative societies. On this basis, Writ Petition

No.16909 of 2003 filed by the appellant as an Advocate was

disposed of. Secondly, there was yet another reason for

dismissal of the writ petition, because the second respondent,

questioning the order of suspension dated 9.2.2002, had also

approached the civil Court by filing a suit in O.S.No.37 of 2002

on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur. Since

Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983

also bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court, the appellant

being a respectable Advocate, has rendered fair advice to his

client that even the suit filed by the second respondent before

the civil Court against the order of suspension, shall not be

legally maintainable, by virtue of Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu

Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. In spite of the fair advice

rendered by the appellant, the second respondent, after the

dismissal of the writ petition, misunderstanding the right

advice made by the appe