IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 8.4.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
Writ Petition No.8919 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
Mr.G.Arumugam ... Petitioner
vs.
The Salem Junction Co-operative
Building Society, S.1349,
represented by its Secretary,
9, 10, Subam Complex,
Subramania Nagar II Gate,
Junction Main Road,
Salem-636 005. ... Respondent
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent pertaining to loan account No.73/02-03 dated 6.12.2010 and quash the same as null and void and consequential relief, directing the respondent to receive a sum of Rs.39,701/- as the full and final settlement and direct the respondent to return the original documents to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ramachandran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam,
Government Advocate.
-----
O R D E R
Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent pertaining to loan account No.73/02-03 dated 6.12.2010 and quash the same as null and void and consequential relief, directing the respondent to receive a sum of Rs.39,701/- as the full and final settlement and direct the respondent to return the original documents to the petitioner.
2. Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 6.12.2010 intimating the dues that has to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent society. Petitioner could have approached the very same authority and give an explanation or sought for clarification. In stead, petitioner has chosen to straightaway come to this Court by way of writ petition which is admittedly is not maintainable in view of the larger Bench decision in K.Marappan vs. – Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal reported in (2006)4 MLJ 641 = 2006(4) CTC 689=2006-4 L.W.495. Para 21 of the larger Bench decision of this Court reads as follows:-
“21. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge:-
(i) If a particular co-operative society can be characterised as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), it would also be ‘an authority’ within the meaning and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. In such a situation, an order passed by a society in violation of the bye-laws can be corrected by way of writ petition.
(ii) Applying the tests in Ajay Hasia it is held that the respondent society carrying on banking business cannot be termed as an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
(iii) Even if a society cannot be characterised as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, even so a writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the society. In such a case, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the society is being treated as a ‘person’ or an ‘authority’ within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and what is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it and the Court will enforce such statutory public duty. Although it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity.
(iv) A society, which is not a ‘State’ would not normally be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in certain circumstances, a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutory provisions which need to be complied with by all concerned including societies. If they violate such statutory provisions a writ would be issued for compliance of those provisions.
(v) Where a Special Officer is appointed in respect of a co-operative society which cannot be characterised as a ‘State’ a writ would lie when the case falls under Clauses (iii) and (iv) above.
(vi) The bye-laws made by a co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the force of law. Hence, where a society cannot be characterised as a ‘State’, the service conditions of its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot be enforced through a writ petition.
(vii) In the absence of special circumstances, the Court will not ordinarily exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides for an alternative remedy.
(viii) The decision in M.Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthagam Agricultural Co-operative Society, 2000 (4) CTC 556 is no longer good law, in view of the decision of the seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case and the other decisions referred to here before.
The reference is answered accordingly. Registry is directed to place the paper before the appropriate bench for its disposal.”
4. This Court, in the absence of special circumstances, is not inclined to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as admittedly, the petitioner has a remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act.
5. As pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, petitioner has given a representation/legal notice dated 30.3.2010 to the respondent. The petitioner is given liberty to pursue the same and the said authority can proceed further in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act wherein effective alternative remedy is provided to the petitioner.
6. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts
To
The Secretary,
The Salem Junction Co-operative
Building Society, S.1349,
9, 10, Subam Complex,
Subramania Nagar II Gate,
Junction Main Road,
Salem 636 005