Tmt. C.Chandrabai, v. The Deputy Registrar Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.01.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.3265 of 2016 & WMP.No.2692 of 2016 C.Chandrabai .. Petitioner Vs.

1 The Deputy Registrar of Co.op.Societies, Thiruvannamalai Circle, Thiruvannamalai.

2 The Chengam Agricultural Producers marketing Society Ltd., Chengam Thiruvannamalai District rep. by its President 3 R.Murugesan S/o. Ramasamy 175 Perumal Kovil Street, Chengam-606 701, Thiruvannamalai District.

.. Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st Respondent from precipitating any further action in pursuance of the demand notice E.P.No. 03/2015-2016 (S.C. No.9/2006 - 2007) dated 18.1.2016 of the 1st respondent issued under Rules 119 and 126 of the Tamilnadu co-op. Societies Rules 1988 by which the 1st respondent has threatened to attach and sell in auction the immovable property shown in the annexure to the demand notice towards the liability of the 3rd respondent for which property the petitioner is the exclusive owner. For Petitioner ..

Mr.S.Venkataraman For Respondents ..

Mr.R.Bala Ramesh, AGP

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Bala Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice on behalf of the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. Petitioner claiming to be the wife of the third respondent, who worked as Secretary under the second respondent society, had misappropriated money and surcharge proceedings has been initiated and an order of surcharge has been passed against the third respondent. Against which, he has filed an appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal and there is no stay of the decree. To recover the amount, steps have also been taken. Pursuant thereto, a notice dated 18.01.2016 has been issued, calling upon the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,40,912.35, within a period of ten days, from the date of service of the notice. In case of non payment, it is stated that the property mentioned in the schedule thereto shall be attached and sold.

3. Now, the petitioner, who is the wife of the third respondent, seeks to challenge the impugned notice and the prayer has been carefully worded as if it was a writ of mandamus. In fact, it is an indirect challenge to the notice dated 18.01.2016. If the petitioner really claims to be the owner of the property in question, it is her right to approach the concerned authorities and raise objections. However, it is clear that the notice issued to the third respondent, cannot be set at knot and this Court is of the view that no ground is made out for issuance of a writ of mandamus as sought for in this writ petition. Accordingly, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order will not prevent the third respondent from raising any objections before the first respondent and if received, it shall be considered by the appropriate authority, in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar smi

To,

1. The Deputy Registrar of Co.op.Societies, Thiruvannamalai Circle, Thiruvannamalai

2. The Chengam Agricultural Producers marketing Society Ltd., Chengam Thiruvannamalai District rep. by its President +1 cc to Mr.S.Venkataraman Advocate sr.5549 +1 cc to the Government Pleader High Court madras sr.6070 W.P.No.3265 of 2016 aa09/02/2016