1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.4994 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 K.A.Pandy ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -600 010. 2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Sub Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Investigation Officer), Ramnad District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the fourth respondent in and by his report dated 30.06.2010 and the revised report dated 20.01.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.V.Bharathidasan For Respondents :Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the report filed under Sections 81 and 82 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred as the "Act") dated 30.06.2010 and 20.01.2011. In the first report dated 30.06.2010 a sum of Rs.4,000/- was held to be a loss caused to the Society. The said payment was made to the counsel fee and since the said payment was not made after following the procedure, the amount should be recovered. In the revised report submitted under Section 82 of the Act, the field officer recommended that the petitioner has prevented the Society from incurring loss and therefore, in view of incriminating materials found against him, disciplinary action can be initiated against him. Even before any action was taken by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the said report submitted by the Field Officer. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the report is in complete violation of principles of natural justice and no notice was given to him. When once report was given on 30.06.2010 the officer become functus officio and he should not have submitted any revised report under Section 82(4) of the Act, wherein a limitation period is prescribed and therefore the report is invalid. 3. When the writ petition came up on 28.04.2011, notice regarding admission was ordered. Pending notice of motion, no interim order was passed though an application was filed to that effect. It must be noted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 that a report under Section 82 of the Act can be called for by the Registrar on his own motion, or on the application of a creditor of a registered society inspect or investigate or direct any person authorised by him in this behalf by general or special order in writing to inspect the affairs of the registered society in general or to investigate into any alleged misappropriation, fraudulent retention of any money or peroperty, breach of trust, corrupt practice or mismanagement in relation to that society or into any particular aspect of the working of that society and the Registrar or the person so authorised shall have all the powers of the Registrar when holding an inquiry under Section 81. It is based on the investigation report received, the Registrar can direct a Registered Society or any officer of the society to take such action as may be specified in the order to remedy within such time as may be specified therein the defects, if any, disclosed as a result of the inspection or investigation in terms of 82(5) of the Act. The stage for hearing the petitioner had not reached and the present report is only a basis under which Registrar can take further action. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner was not heard has no merit. 4. The second contention that under Section 82(4) of the Act a enquiry will have to be completed in three months is concerned, the question that such a limitation will not affect the outcome of the investigation came to be considered by this Court. The limitation prescribed under Section 82(4) of the Act is merely directory and not mandatory and dealing with the similar situation this Court in G.Pannerselvam V. Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies ({2009} 2 MLJ 901) held that limitation is only directly and it will not void the report. The said view is also confirmed subsequently by a Division Bench in A.Balaraman V. Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies {(2009) 3 MLJ 1032}. Therefore, the second objection must also fail. Ultimately, a mere report recommending action against the petitioner does not affect the right of the petitioner. Ultimately, if any action is initiated pursuant to the report, it is for the petitioner to give appropriate explanation and satisfy the authorities that he has not caused any loss to the society. The present writ petition is pre mature and not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( T AND P ) /TRUE COPY/ jikr SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -600 010. 2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Sub Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Investigation Officer), Ramnad District. DM::2011:OCTOBER:::20:: Order made in W.P.(MD)No.4994 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 2P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/