IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.10.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR A.S.Natarajan (Deceased)

2. Rukmani

3. N.Velmurugan 4. B.Karpagavalli

5. H.Kalpana (P2 to P5 substituted as LRs of deceased sole petitioner vide order dated 20.08.2025 made in WMP.No.26223/2021 in W.P.No.16290/2019) ... Petitioners vs

1. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore, Saravanabhava Super Market Complex, Pudupalayam, Cuddalore. 2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cuddalore.

3. The President, Adinarayanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd Adinarayanapuram, Cuddalore District – 608 801.

4. The President, Kundiyamallur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd Kundiyamallur, Cuddalore District – 607 301. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Cetriorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings A THI MU.No.716/2019 Thu Va Tha.1 and quash his order dated 19.03.2019 and direct the second respondent to consider afresh and pass orders on merits on the application filed under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 dated 11.10.2018 to pay the amounts due to the petitioner towards the petitioners retirement benefits after deducting the amounts due to the society on account of the surcharge proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which has been returned by the second respondent as not maintainable in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.2804/2018 Sa Pa and pass orders.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vijayanand For Respondents : Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri Government Advocate for R1 & R2 : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram for R3 & R4

O R D E R

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.

2. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is that he having worked as Secretary of the third respondent, had retired from service on 31.03.2017; that he was not paid retirement benefits, for which, he had filed an application dated 11.10.2018, under Section 90 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (in short “the Act”), with the Deputy Registrar/second respondent raising a dispute; and that the second respondent, instead of considering the aforesaid application by calling for the records, vide proceedings dated

23.11.2018, returned the said application filed under Section 90 of the Act, claiming that there is no way to proceed with the case under Section 90 of the Act.

3. Petitioner further contended that aggrieved by the return of application by the second respondent filed under Section 90 of the Act, the petitioner had filed revision application under Section 153 of the Act dated 18.02.2019 and the said Revision Petition has also been rejected by the first respondent stating that the proceedings of the second respondent cannot be considered as an order for the petitioner to file revision application under Section 153 of the Act.

4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the application filed by the petitioner before the second respondent cannot be considered as one under Section 90 of the Act, since the scope of Section 90 of the Act, does not take within its ambit the dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner i.e., with regard to retirement benefit not being extended.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further submit that inasmuch the second respondent returned the application filed by the petitioner under Section 90 of the Act refusing to entertain the dispute, the petitioner cannot seek revision under Section 153 of the Act and that the petitioner has to avail other remedies open to him.

6. I have taken note of respective contentions.

7. Section 90 of the Act deals with the dispute touching upon the various matters and sub-clause thereto, provides for dispute betw