Full order THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.Nos.12476 and 12894 of 2021. Cooperative socities order. 28.In view of the above, the impugned proceedings dated 1.06.2021 of the first respondent suspending the petitioners under Section 76-A of the Act are quashed. However, it is made clear that the inquiry under Sec 81 of the Act can go on and a report shall be submitted by the inquiry officer within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Needless to say that further action on the report shall proceed strictly in accordance with law. 29.In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 06.08.2021
PRONOUNCING ORDERS ON : 10.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.Nos.12476 and 12894 of 2021
and
WMP Nos.36769, 36772 and 32894 of 2019
D.Krishnamoorthy …Petitioner
in W.P.No.12476 of 2019
S.R.Ravi …Petitioner
in W.P.No.12894 of 2019
.Vs.
1.The Registrar of Co-operative Society
(Housing),
No.48, Rithdren Road,
Vepery,
Chennai 600 007.
2.The Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Society (Housing),
No.18, Ramanathan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
..Respondents
in Both WPs
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent dated 01.06.2021 made in Na.Ka.No.3173/2021/E1 issued as against the petitioner and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
(in Both WPs) Senior Counsel
for Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram
For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran
(in Both WPs) Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners are the President and the Vice-President of the Perambur Cooperative Building Society Ltd. These writ petitions assail the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 01.06.2021 suspending the petitioners, in exercise of powers under Section 76-A of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for a period of 6 months pending an inquiry under Section 81 of the said Act.
2.The petitioners were elected as the President and Vice President, respectively, during the elections conducted in 2018 for a period of 5 years. The Joint Registrar (Inspection Cell) gave a report dated 20.05.2021to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing), the 2nd Respondent herein, to the effect that an inspection was conducted in the Society and certain serious violations were identified during inspection. Consequently, a recommendation was made to conduct an inquiry under Section 81 of the Act. Acting on this report, an inquiry was ordered by the 2nd Respondent through proceedings dt. 24.05.2021 under Section 81 of the Act and a senior inspector was appointed as the inquiry officer. Pending the inquiry, the 2nd Respondent sent a proposal to the 1st Respondent to suspend the petitioners in the interest of the Society since there was prima facie evidence involving criminal misconduct and serious violations. The 1st Respondent on receipt of recommendations of the 2nd Respondent issued the impugned proceedings dt. 01.06.2021 suspending the Petitioners for 6 months from 01.06.2021, in exercise of powers under Section 76-A of the Act. These writ petitions assail the aforesaid orders dated 01.06.2021.
3.The Respondents have filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that on the inspection conducted by the Joint Registrar (Inspection Cell), it was found that the Board of Management, without getting any administrative sanction and without following the procedure had allotted 0.18 cents of vacant land belonging to the society in favor of one Mr. Murugan by entering into a lease agreement with him on 24.09.2020. A further allegation made in the counter affidavit is that the property was leased for a period of 11 years and the vacant site was handed over to the said Mr. Murugan for a paltry lease amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, according to the Respondents, a property with a market value of more than Rs.5 crores has been let out for a monthly rent of Rs.25,000and this property is situated at a prime locality. By virtue of this lease deed, the lessee has been permitted to put up permanent structures and the society is incurring a huge loss. On such serious violations being identified at the time of inspection, an inquiry has been ordered under Section 81 of the Act and an inquiry officer has also been appointed. Since the respondents found prima facie material pointing to violation of rules, breach of trust and serious irregularities in allotment of land, it was decided to place the petitioners under suspension pending Section 81 inquiry.
4.Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners attacked the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent on the ground that it is tainted with malafides, it has been done with a political vendetta and that the procedure contemplated under Section 76-A of the Act has not been strictly followed. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the subject property had been encroached by anti-social elements and a lot of effort was taken to remove the encroachers with the help of the police. Thereafter, to safeguard the property and to prevent any further encroachment, a compound wall was constructed around the property. During 2015-16, the same was intimated to the concerned authorities and a resolution was also passed by the society to rent out the premises to both prevent any future encroachments and to augment the income of the Society. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the resolutions that were passed by the Society on 07.09.2018 were also placed before the 1st Respondent on 12.09.2018 seeking approval to lease out the property. Thereafter, the Society entered into a lease agreement dt. 24.09.2020 and this agreement was also registered as Doc No. 2661 of 2020. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon Clause 11 of the lease deed and submitted that the lease was granted to safeguard the property from encroachments and a reasonable rent was fixed to earn some income for the Society.
5.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that after the assembly elections, the new government took charge during the first week of June 2021 and immediately thereafter the 1st Respondent has proceeded to suspend the Petitioners under the guise of a pending inquiry under Section 81 of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Petitioners were very much present in the Society till the end of May 2021 and there was no inspection conducted by any authority on 24.05.2021 as claimed by the Respondents. The action has been taken in a hasty manner for purely political considerations and it is colorable exercise of power on the part of the 1st Respondent. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the 1st Respondent was expected to assign reasons while coming to an opinion to suspend the office bearers and there is nothing in the impugned order to show that the 1st Respondent has arrived at an opinion based on objective considerations. The learned Senior Counsel by pointing out Rule 104(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) submitted that the Registrar is mandated to examine whether there is any need to hold an inquiry under Section 81 of the Act and in the present case, the 2nd Respondent has hastened through the process of ordering for an inquiry and therefore, the very inquiry ordered under Section 81 of the Act is unsustainable.
6.Per contra, the learned government counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the 2nd Respondent has been delegated the power to order for an inquiry under Section 81 of the Act by virtue of G.O. No. 31, dt. 08.01.1990. It was further submitted that the report of the Joint Registrar (Inspection Cell) pointed out serious irregularities and violations which required an immediate inquiry under Section 81 of the Act and accordingly, an inquiry was ordered on 24.05.2021. Pending this inquiry, the 1st Respondent has exercised powers under Section 76-A of the Act and suspended the petitioners since there was prima facie evidence against both the officer bearers of the Society that they had committed breach of trust and other serious irregularities in allotment of land. He contended that public interest warranted placing the Petitioners under suspension to effectively conduct the inquiry. The learned government counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that all the procedures have been followed to order for an inquiry under Section 81 of the Act and to consequently suspend the Petitioners pending an inquiry as contemplated under Section 76-A of the Act and that there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the same
7.This Court has carefully considered the aforesaid submissions made on either side and examined the material on record.
8.Before going into the various submissions, it is imperative to have a closer look into the scope of Section 76-A of the Act. This exercise must be carried out at the threshold since this provision has been invoked for the first time in this case and it is, therefore, necessary to delineate its scope as this would have a major impact when this provision is put into operation in future cases.
9.For better appreciation, Section 76-A of the Act, is extracted hereunder:
“76-A. Suspension of President or Vice-President of a registered society under certain circumstances:—
(1) Where it is brought to the notice of the Registrar, on a complaint or otherwise, that the President or the Vice-President of a registered society has committed or has been otherwise responsible for misappropriation or breach of trust or gross mismanagement of the aff airs of the registered society or committed any off ence involving criminal misconduct or moral turpitude and if, in the opinion of the Registrar, there is a prima facie evidence against the President or the Vice-President and the suspension of the President or the Vice-President is necessary in the interest of such society or in the public interest, the Registrar may, by order, place the President or the Vice-President, under suspension for a period not exceeding six months, pending inquiry under section 81 or inspection or investigation under section 82 or investigation into the offence involving criminal misconduct or moral turpitude.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an action under section 36 has been initiated against the President or the Vice-President, the period of suspension may be extended by the Registrar, from time to time, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, for a further period of six months or till final order is passed under section 36, whichever is earlier.’’.
Section 76-A, which was inserted by the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 2020, came into effect on 26.02.2020 when the amendment was published in the Official Gazette. This provision has been curiously inserted in Chapter VIII (Sections 73 to 79) of the Act which deals with “Paid officers and servants of Society”. The President or Vice President of a registered Society are elected office bearers and are not paid officers or servants of the society who are appointed under Section 73 of the Act. The placement of Section 76-A in Chapter VIII is, quite simply, bizarre since the power to suspend an elected member is placed in a chapter that has nothing to do with elected members at all. If the legislature had intended to treat elected officers as being akin to paid servants such a classification would fall foul of Article 14 since that would be tantamount to treating unequal’s equally. This is, perhaps, another instance where the legislature has unwittingly assented to a product of the “cut and paste syndrome”.
10.That Section 76-A is a “cut and paste job” is evident from a perusal of Section 76 which deals with the suspension of a paid officer or a servant of a society. Section 76(1)(a) of the Act runs as follows:
“76. Suspension of a paid Officer or servant of society.__ (1) Where (a) in the course of an audit under section 80 or an inquiry under section 81 or an inspection or investigation under section 82, or inspection of books under section 83, it is brought to the notice of the Registrar that a paid officer or servant of a registered society whether or not he is borne on a common cadre of service has committed or has been otherwise responsible for misappropriation, breach of trust or other offences in relation to any registered society and if, in the opinion of the Registrar there is a “prima facie” evidence against such paid officer or servant and the suspension of such paid officer or servant is necessary in the interest of any such society, or”
11.From a comparative reading of Section 76(1)(a) and Section 76-A(1) it is evident that the language deployed is identical and that the only difference is that in the former, ‘paid officer or servant of society’ will be the persons suspended whereas in the latter it is the President or the Vice President. The legislature appears to have been completely oblivious to the fundamental principle that the power to suspend a paid officer or servant flows from the contract of service or the relevant rules that govern the master-servant relationship. The concept of a master-servant relationship is wholly alien in the case of elected office bearers since neither the State Government nor the Registrar or Sub-Registrar are the masters or the employers nor are the elected President and/or Vice President their paid servants or employees. By equating paid servants with democratically elected office bearers,the legislature has missed the wood for the trees by treating dissimilar groups similarly. Section 76-A sticks out like a sore thumb and ought not to have been incorporated under Chapter VIII of the Act.
12.The election of the members of the Board is a democratic process which is undertaken by an Election Commission constituted under Section 33-A of the Act. The entire process of election is set out in Rule 52 of the Rules. A poll is held, and the members cast their votes and elect the members of the Board. Consequently the office bearers also get elected under Rule 53 of the Rules. Insofar as removal of an elected office bearer is concerned, the same is specifically dealt with under Rule 62 of the Rules which lays down the procedure for such removal. There is also a provision for removal of elected members of the Board under Rule 61 of the Rules. That apart there is also a specific provision under Section 88 of the Act for the supersession of the Board under certain circumstances and for appointment of an administrator to manage the affairs of the Society.
13.It is clear from the above that the scheme of the Act envisages that the elected Board and the Office Bearers are dealt with in a specific manner under the Act when it comes to their removal or supersession. Consequently, if the legislature wanted to bring in the concept of suspension of an elected officer bearer, pending inquiry under Section 81 of the Act, such a provision ought not to have been incorporated into Chapter VIII of the Act which deals with paid servants and employees. It is for this reason that this Court is constrained to observe that Section 76-A had the traits of a cut and paste legislation. However, as the vires of this provision has not been called into question, it is not necessary to dwell any further on this aspect.
14.Turning to the scope of Section 76-A, it may be noticed that the exercise of power under the said provision is a two-step process. The first step contemplates the placing of information before the Registrar indicating that the President or the Vice President has committed or has been otherwise responsible for misappropriation or breach of trust or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the registered society or has committed any offence involving criminal misconduct or moral turpitude. The second stage is where the Registrar is required to form an opinion (obviously based on the material placed before him in stage one) that there is prima facie evidence against the said office bearers and that the suspension of the officer bearers is necessary in the interest of such society or in public interest. It is important to notice that a mere forming of a prima facie case by the Registrar will not do. The jurisdictional fact to trigger Section 76-A is not mere availability of prima facie material. The Registrar is required to travel further and evaluate whether, based on such material, the suspension of the President or Vice President is necessary in public interest or in the larger interests of the society. The reason for this is not far to seek. The object of suspension is to facilitate easy collection of evidence in the investigation or inquiry into the charges levelled against the delinquent office bearer. It would be prejudicial to the public interest and the pending inquiry when the authorities are satisfied that the witnesses may hesitate to depose against the delinquent office bearer so long as he continues to be in office or if the delinquent office bearer is capable of tampering with the witnesses or records. The power of suspension must, therefore be resorted to sparingly with the sole object of subserving and aiding a free and impartial inquiry under Section 81.
15.Another aspect is that the Registrar cannot apply the same threshold applicable to a paid servant of a society while suspending a President or Vice President under Section 76-A. A democratically elected official cannot be put on the same pedestal as that of a paid servant of the society. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir. V Collector reported in (2012 4 SCC 407), the Supreme Court has stated the position in the following terms:
“31. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self-government has to be put on a higher pedestal as against a government servant. If a temporary government employee cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without holding a full-fledged inquiry, it is difficult to imagine how an elected office-bearer can be removed without holding a full-fledged inquiry.
- In service jurisprudence, minor punishment is permissible to be imposed while holding the inquiry as per the procedure prescribed for it but for removal, termination or reduction in rank, a full-fledged inquiry is required otherwise it will be violative of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The case is to be understood in an entirely different context as compared to the government employees, for the reason, that for the removal of the elected officials, a more stringent procedure and standard of proof is required.
- In a democratic institution, like ours, the incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or he is removed by the procedure established under law. The proceedings for removal must satisfy the requirement of natural justice and the decision must show that the authority has applied its mind to the allegations made and the explanation furnished by the elected office-bearer sought to be removed.”
16.It would, therefore, be evident from the aforesaid decision that interference with the term of office of an elected office bearer is an exceptional case and cannot be resorted to routinely. An elected official is answerable to the electorate, and his right to represent them in the affairs of the society cannot be suspended on whimsical and fanciful grounds. The threshold for suspension of an elected official is, therefore, very high and it cannot be routinely resorted to as that would destroy the very basis of the democratic set up of such societies.
17.More importantly, the Registrar, while acting under Section 76-A cannot exercise power for purposes that are foreign to the Act for that would be an abuse of power amounting to a malice in law (See paragraph 47 of Ravi Yashwant Rao Bhoir, supra). The Registrar cannot be guided by extraneous reasons, political or otherwise, while exercising power under Section 76-A. As a statutory functionary he is required to act honestly and cannot be guided by the diktats of the political masters. The provision cannot be administered with an unequal hand and an evil eye. The benchmark has been set out in the decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach reported in (2013 7 SCC 25) wherein, it was observed thus:
“36.Statutory functionaries like the Registrar/Joint Registrar of cooperative societies functioning under the respective Cooperative Act must be above suspicion and function independently without external pressure. When an authority invested with the power purports to act on its own but in substance the power is exercised by external guidance or pressure, it would amount to non-exercise of power, statutorily vested. Large number of cases are coming up before this Court and the High Courts in the country challenging the orders of supersession and many of them are being passed by the statutory functionaries due to external influence ignoring the fact that they are ousting a democratically elected Board, the consequence of which is also grave because the members of the Board of Directors would also stand disqualified in standing for the succeeding election as well.
- The Registrar/Joint Registrar, while exercising powers of supersession has to form an opinion and that opinion must be based on some objective criteria, which has nexus with the final decision. A statutory authority shall not act with pre-conceived notion and shall not speak his masters’ voice, because the formation of opinion must be his own, not of somebody else in power, to achieve some ulterior motive. There may be situations where the Registrar/Joint Registrar are expected to act in the best interest of the society and its members, but in such situations, they have to act bona fide and within the four corners of the statute. In our view, the impugned order will not fall in that category.”
18.To understand the serious impact of suspending an elected member or an office bearer, let us take the extreme case of having such a provision for an elected MLA or an MP. If there is a legislation which provides for suspension of an elected MLA or an MP pending inquiry on certain serious allegations of irregularities and corrupt practices against him, it would seriously impact the rights of the elected representative of the people who represent them in the Assembly or the Parliament as the case may be. Obviously, this would offend the basic tenets of democracy.
19.The reason why this Court took this example was to illustrate the fact that the seriousness is immediately felt when a reference is made to an elected Member of Assemblies or the Parliament. The election of the Board or the office bearers is no less important, and the only difference here is that the members of the Society elect them through a democratic process in an election conducted by the Election Commission. This must be borne in mind when dealing with a case of this nature concerning where an interjection is sought to be made into the functioning of the office bearers by suspending them even before the inquiry is completed. There is no doubt that even as against the elected Board or an office bearer, surcharge proceedings can be initiated under Section 87 of the Act based on a report filed after an inquiry under Section 81 of the Act. If the case involves criminal breach of trust or criminalmisappropriation or misconduct, even criminal proceedings can be initiated against the elected members of the board or the office bearers.
20.In the present case, the Joint Registrar (Inspection Cell), based on a phone call received is said to have visited the society and verified the documents on 20.05.2021 and identified certain violations. The nature of violation is that a valuable property worth more than Rs.5 crores is said to have been leased to one Mr.Murugan for a monthly rent of Rs 25,000 for a period of 11 years. Pursuant to the same, the said Murugan is said to have constructed 39 shops in an extent of 2400 sq. ft. and 1 shop is now being put to use and all the other shops have not been let out to any third party. The said authority had given their report to that effect on 20.05.2021 to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent in turn directed the 2nd respondent to initiate an inquiry through letter dated 21.05.2021. Based on this letter, the 2ndRespondent through proceedings dated 24.05.2021 had ordered for an inquiry under Section 81 of the Act and an inquiry officer has also been appointed. Pending this inquiry, the impugned proceedings dated 01.06.2021 came to be issued by the first respondent suspending the petitioners for a period of 6 months.
21.The petitioners have taken a very specific stand to the effect that they were very much in charge of the affairs of the society during May 2021 and no such inspection was conducted and they were not even aware about the initiation of the inquiry under Sec 81 of the Act and that they came to know of it only after receiving the suspension order from the 1STRespondent.
22.The learned SeniorCounsel for the petitioners has alleged malafides and political vendetta and according to the learned Senior Counsel, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent is nothing but a “his master’s voice” of the present political disposition. Given the nature of the allegations and denials it would be treading a slippery slope if this Court were to return a finding merely based on the assertions made by the petitioners and the same being denied by the respondents. The proper course, therefore, would be to examine the impugned order and to see if the jurisdictional requirements for triggering Section 76-A have been met.
23.A careful reading of the impugned proceedings of the first respondents reveals that it is a mechanical incantation of the very words found in Sec 76-A of the Act. For proper appreciation, the relevant portions in the impugned order are extracted hereunder.
“r’;f Mtz’;fis Ma;t[ bra;jj[py; tpjp kPwy;fs; eilbgw;Ws;sjw;F mog;gil Kfhe;jpuk; cs;sjhy; jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[r; r’;f’;fspd; rl;lk; 1983 gphpt[ fPH; tprhuizf;F Mizapl;L tphpthd tprhuiz mwpf;ifapd; mog;gilapy; bjhlh; eltof;if nkw;bfhs;syhk; vd;W mwpf;if rkh;g;gpj;jjpd; mog;gilapy; ,J Fwpj;J brd;id kz;ly Jizg;gjpthsh; (tPl;Ltrjp)ahy; jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[r; r’;f’;fspd; rl;lk ghpt[ 81d; fPH; rl;lg{h;t tprhuizf;F Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/
vdnt X88 bguk;g{h; Tl;Lwt[r; fl;ol r’;fj;jpy; ele;Js;s tpjpkPwy;fSf;Fk;. KiwnfLfSf;Fk;. ek;gpf;if nkhrof;Fk; fhuzkhf jh’;fs; ,UtUk; ,Ug;gjw;F mog;gil Kfhe;jpuk; cs;sjhYk;. r’;f ey;d fUjpa[k;. bghJ eyd; fUjpa[k; ,J bjhlh;ghf jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[r; r’;f’;fspd; rl;lk; 1983 rl;lg;gphpt[ 81?d; fPH; rl;lg;g{h;t tprhuif;F cj;jputplg;gl;L tprhuiz epYitapy; cs;s epiyapy; ,r;r’;fj;jpd; jw;nghija jiyth; fpU.D. fpUc&;zK:h;j;jp kw;Wk; jw;nghija Jizj;jiyth; jpUS.R/utp Mpfnahh;fis 1983 jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[r; r’;f’;fspd; rl;lk; gphpt[ 76-A-,d; fPH; 01.06.2021 Kjy; 6 khj’;fs; jw;fhypf gjtp ePf;fk; (Suspension) bra;J cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ. ,th;fs; r’;fj;jpd; jiyth; kw;Wk; Jizj; jiyth; bghWg;gpy; ,Ue;J cldoahf tpLtpf;fg;gLpfwhh;fs;”.
24.Whether the suspension of elected officer bearers is warranted pending an inquiry, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As pointed out, supra, the requirement of Section 76-A is not merely the existence of prima facie material. The Registrar must return a finding on the basis of such material that an order of suspension was necessary in public interest or in the interests of the society. In other words, the Registrar must satisfy himself that if such suspension is not made, there is scope for the office bearers to interfere with theinquiry and/or tamper with the evidence. In the absence of the any such apprehension, there will be no requirement for suspension and the inquiry can go on.
25.Section 76-A is a drastic power which interferes with the rights of the elected members who have been voted to office, and must, therefore, be exercised very sparingly and only in the clearest cases where there is objective material to show that the continuation of office would interfere and impede a free and fair inquiry under Section 81. Otherwise, persons who have lost the election can always take control through a back door by getting the Registrar pass an order suspending the office bearers on the basis of external influence. Such a course is expressly forbidden in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach reported in (2013 7 SCC 25).
26.In the present case, things have moved very swiftly from 20.05.2021 to 1.06.2021 and by the time an inquiry officer was appointed, the impugned proceedings suspending the petitioners came to be issued on 01.06.2021.The present case only involves scrutiny of documents which are already available and taking statements from the petitioners and others. There is no scope for any serious tampering of evidence since the documents are already available with the respondents. There is absolutely no material on record to conclude that the suspension was warranted in public interest or in the interests of the society. There is nothing on record to show how the Registrar had apprehended that the continuation of the petitioner’s in office would impede the course of a fair and impartial inquiry. In other words, the Registrar has, quite evidently, acted on surmises and conjectures.
27.As has been pointed out, supra, a mere prima facie case will not do to invoke Section 76-A. The jurisdictional requirement of Section 76-A has, thus, not been met in this case. Ex-consequenti, the exercise of power by the first respondent to pass the impugned orders dated 01.06.2021 under Section 76-A is clearly without jurisdiction.
28.In view of the above, the impugned proceedings dated 1.06.2021 of the first respondent suspending the petitioners under Section 76-A of the Act are quashed. However, it is made clear that the inquiry under Sec 81 of the Act can go on and a report shall be submitted by the inquiry officer within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Needless to say that further action on the report shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.
29.In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.08.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
KP
.
To
1.The Registrar of Co-operative Society
(Housing),
No.48, Rithdren Road,
Vepery,
Chennai 600 007.
2.The Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Society (Housing),
No.18, Ramanathan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
KP
Pre Delivery Common Order in
W.P.Nos.12476 and 12894 of 2021
10.08.2021
