Writ petitions against cooperative societies are not maintainable unless they qualify as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records in Circular Clr.No.20/2019/05/PAD, dated 25.02.2019 passed by the third respondent/ the Repatriate Cooperative Finance and Development Bank (REPCO Bank) and quash the same and direct the respondent not to recognise the public/B- Class members as Repatriate voting rights.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been contended that the writ petitioner is a Burma Repatriate and voting member of the third respondent Bank, namely, REPCO Bank. The main object of the said bank was to help and promote the rehabilitation of repatriates from Sri Lanka, Burma, Vietnam and other countries. It had been stated that however contrary to such object, the third respondent had issued the impugned circular enabling admission of public and B class members as ordinary members (voting rights). The petitioner had stated that this was in total violation of the bye laws of the third respondent against the object of the third respondent. It had been further stated that the third respondent is a Cooperative Society established in the year 1969 under the Madras Co-operative Society Act 1961. It is now deemed to be established under the Multistate Cooperative Societies Act. It had been contended that the by-laws of the society provides for two classes of members. 'A' class members constitute repatriate with voting rights and 'B' class members are nominal or admission members. It had been further stated that the third respondent had stated that the B class members must be given the status of A class members. It was under those circumstances that the impugned circular came to be passed on 25.02.2019. In the circular, it had been stated that a decision had been taken to admit other than repatriates as 'A' class members of the bank as per the provision available in the by-laws of the Bank. This circular has been challenged in the present Writ Petition.

3. It must however be mentioned that two other writ petitions had been filed questioning this very circular. Those Writ Petitions were W.P.No. 9623 of 2009 and W.P.No. 29390 of 2016. In both the Writ Petitions, directions had been issued by this Court to amend the circular and to bring a fresh circular. It had thus been stated that the circular now challenged in the Writ Petition had been withdrawn by the respondents and therefore, a fresh circular had been issued on 28.11.2019.

4. Seeking to amend the relief sought to call for the records relating to Circular No. 74/2019/11/PAD dated 28.11.2019 which was the fresh circular issued and quash the said circular, the petitioner had filed W.M.P.No. 39575 of 2024. It had been contended that in the circular issued afresh once again the general public / non repatriates were permitted to be admitted as A class members with voting right

5. It must however also be mentioned that questioning this amended circular dated 28.11.2019 W.P.No. 23985 of 2021 had been filed by one A.Rajagopal. A learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the said Writ Petition by order dated 10.11.2021. The Writ Appeal filed by A.Rajagopalan in W.A.No.179 of 2022 had also been dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 13.06.2024.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner however contended that the Writ Petition should be heard and therefore advanced arguments at length. He again argued that the third respondent was formed for the benefit of repatriates and therefore Class A members should be restricted only to repatriates and they alone can exercise voting rights to elect the Board of Directors. The learned counsel pointed out that by the impugned circular, the respondent had attempted to expand the members who could exercise their voting rights by also permitting admission of non repatriates as Class A members. The learned counsel therefore stated that this Court must examine whether the circular is in conformity with the object of the bank and therefore urged that the W