Skip to content


Annai Indira Labour Contract Co-operative Society Represented by Its Chief Promotor T.J. Lakshmanan Vs. the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1985)2MLJ398
AppellantAnnai Indira Labour Contract Co-operative Society Represented by Its Chief Promotor T.J. Lakshmanan
RespondentThe Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and anr.
Excerpt:
.....law and order problem, which, in his opinion, having regard to the past experience will render this society functioning unsuccessfully, i should hold that it perfectly falls within the parameters indicated by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the tamil nadu co-operative societies act, 1961. 4. besides this, an appeal is provided against the impugned order under section 96 of the tamil nadu co-operative societies act, 1961, to the registrar......the society as applied for by the petitioner on 25.3.1982 in accordance with the provisions of the tamil nadu co-operative societies act, 1961.2. mr. s. ramalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that the rejection of the request of the petitioner for registration is arbitrary in that, having directed the petitioner to comply with the necessary formalities, to go back and reject the request of the petitioner would amount to arbitrariness. therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. further, the rejection is not warranted under section 9 of the tamil nadu co-operative societies act, 1961. the learned additional government pleader says that the impugned order dated 25.10.1982 of the first respondent is self-explanatory. the rejection in this case is mainly on the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Mohan, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus directing the first respondent herein to register the society as applied for by the petitioner on 25.3.1982 in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.

2. Mr. S. Ramalingam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urges that the rejection of the request of the petitioner for registration is arbitrary in that, having directed the petitioner to comply with the necessary formalities, to go back and reject the request of the petitioner would amount to arbitrariness. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Further, the rejection is not warranted under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The learned Additional Government Pleader says that the impugned order dated 25.10.1982 of the first respondent is self-explanatory. The rejection in this case is mainly on the ground of law and order problem, which, certainly is a valid ground under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Mr. G. Rajan, appearing for the party impleaded, supporting the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that having regard to the past experience when situation became worse in that, there was a breach of peace, the impugned order is fully supportable Undoubtedly, it is within the scope of Section 9 of the Act.

3. I have very carefully perused the impugned order dated 25.10.1982 rejecting the request for registration of the petitioner-society. It mainly proceeds on the ground that the attention of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has been drawn to the fact that there would be law and order problem in case two societies function. This Court cannot, like under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code proceedings, go into the question whether this statement is correct or not. Certainly, the poor labourers cannot be exposed to the risk of life or limb or even required to face such hazards, more so in a place where mining operations go on with explosives as well. As to the scope of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, I may now extract Sub-section (1) of Section 9 which reads as follows:

If the Registrar is satisfied that the application for the registration of a society is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and that the proposed bye-laws are not contrary to this Act or the rules or to co-operative principles and that the society will, in his opinion, work successfully he may register the society and its bye-laws.

No doubt, registration can be granted by the Registrar, in this case by the Deputy Registrar, if it is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and the proposed bye-laws are not contrary to this Act or the rules or the co-operative principles. But the most important point to be noted is, what is contained in the later half of the sub-section. That says that the Registrar should satisfy that the society will, in his opinion, work successfully. Therefore, that is the essential law, however, avowedly placed it within the subjective realm. Where, therefore, the attention of the Deputy Registrar has been drawn to the law and order problem, which, in his opinion, having regard to the past experience will render this society functioning unsuccessfully, I should hold that it perfectly falls within the parameters indicated by Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.

4. Besides this, an appeal is provided against the impugned order under Section 96 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, to the Registrar. There is no justification for the petitioner to bye-pass that remedy. Therefore, I hereby direct the petitioner to file an appeal on or before 15.10.1985 and as and when such appeal comes to be filed, due notice will be given to the parties concerned including the party impleaded herein, namely, Tirusoolam Anna Harijan Blue Metal Workers' Industrial Co-operative Society and the appellate authority will consider the case from the angle of law and order as is prevalent to-day. If necessary, he may even get reports from the concerned police authorities. However, should he be inclined to accord registration, such registration shall date back to the date of the application of the petitioner. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //