A.D. Koshal, J.
1. A dispute between the Salaimangalam Co-operative Stores Limited, a Co-operative Society which is hereinafter referred to as the Society, and the petitioner who was a member of that Society, was referred to the arbitration of the Co-operative Extension Officer, Ammapet, who gave his award dated the 31st August, 1970, holding the petitioner liable for a sum of Rs. 3,066-05p. to the Society. The petitioner went up in appeal to the District Judge, Thanjavur, acting as the Tribunal under Section 96 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That appeal, however, was found by the Tribunal not to be entertainable, that the Society had gone into liquidation during its pendency and that Section 89 of the Act was a bar to it. That Section states:
Save in so far as is expressly provided in this Act, no civil Court shall take cognizance of any matter connected with the winding up or cancellation of the registration of a registered society under this Act, when it is by a liquidator as such or against the liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof on any matter touching the affairs of the registered society, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he. may impose.
The Tribunal held that the appeal before it was a legal proceeding and was therefore not competent in the absence of any leave having been given therefor by the Registrar.
The order of the Tribunal is dated the 20th July, 1972, which is challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that it be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
2. As held in Bhogayya v. A.D.P. Sangam Limited, the legal proceeding envisaged by Section 89 of the Act is a proceeding of an original nature and not one by way of appeal, so that the reasoning of the Tribunal that the appeal filed by the petitioner before it was a legal proceeding within the meaning of Section 89 of the Act cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator of the Society seeks to distinguish that case on the grounds that it related to a dispute between a Society and a third person (as opposed to a member of the Society) and the appeal in the instant case is an appeal under the Act while, in that case, it was some other kind of appeal. These grounds do not present any distinguishing feature on principle and are wholly untenable.
3. In the result, the petition succeeds and is accepted and the impugned order is quashed with a direction that the appeal shall be heard by the Tribunal on merits. The petitioner shall have his costs of the proceedings. Counsel's fee Rs. 100.