W.P(MD)No.10095 of 2009

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 20.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

W.P(MD)No.10095 of 2009

and

MP(MD) No.1 of 2009

1.S.Ponnusamy

2.Kumara Pandian

3.Karuppanan

4.Karuppiah

5.Palraj

6.Seetharaman

7.Kamal Pasha

8.Karupayee

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Principal District Judge,

(Co-operative Tribunal),

Virudhunagar District,

Srivilliputhur.

2.The Special Officer,

RMD 3, Tiruchuli Primary Agricultural

Co-operative Bank and Rural Development Bank Ltd,

Reddiapatti (Post),

Virudhunagar District.

3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative

Societies,

Pandalgudi Road,

Aruppukottai.

...Respondents

1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.10095 of 2009

PRAYER:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the

records relating to the proceedings of the first and third respondents

made in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Co-operative Societies) No.

25/2002, dated 20.12.2007 and S.C.No.18/2000-01, dated 06.08.2001

respectively and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohandass

For R1 & R3

: Mr.D.Gandhiraj

Special Government Pleader

For R2

: Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed as against the order of the third

respondent in SC 18 of 2000-1, dated 06.08.2001, under Section 87 of

the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the order of the

Co-operative Tribunal, Virudhunagar District in CMACS No.25 of 2002.

2.The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner was

functioning as elected President of RMD 3 Thiruchuli Primary

Agricultural Co-operative Bank and Land Development Bank Ltd,

Reddiapatti and the other petitioners were the elected directors of the

Board of Management of the said Bank. The third respondent initiated

2/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.10095 of 2009

surcharge proceedings as against these petitioners, under Section 87 of

the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, based on the inspection

report of the Sub Registrar of Co-operative Societies that pay revision

made by these petitioners by virtue of settlement is without any authority

of law and it was also detected that a sum of Rs.2,98,377/- was paid in

excess than the eligible amount. The order of the third respondent was

challenged by the petitioners in CMACS No.25 of 2002 before the

District Judge of Co-operative Tribunal, Virudhunagar District and the

same was dismissed, by order dated 20.12.2007. Both the orders are

impugned in this writ petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the surcharge proceedings initiated by the third respondent is based

on the inspection report, dated 08.11.1999. But, the said report was not

served upon the petitioners and the entire proceedings was conducted

behind their back. He further submits that the petitioners were found

fault by the third respondent that the petitioners have paid excess amount

to some of the employees, under Section 18(1) settlement, which is

incorrect. According to the petitioners, revision of scale of pay was made

only based on the byelaw of the Society. The learned counsel has also

3/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.10095 of 2009

relied on byelaw 25(6), which reads as follows:-

“(vi) to prescribe from time to time the strength of the

establishment of the bank and scale of pay and allowances

admissible to each member thereof subject to the budget

allotment sanctioned by the General Body; provided

however the pay and allowances admissible to the

Manager shall be as fixed by the Registrar”

4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,

revision has been made under Section 18(1) of Industrial Dispute Act,

when the work of five employees has been shared by four e