1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition No.1727 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2011 Madurai District Sarvodaya Sangh Through its Treasurer R.Suresh Kumar ... Petitioner vs. 1.Madurai District Sarvodaya Sangh, Through its Secretary, 26, Town Hall Road,' Maurai - 625 001. 2.Maurai District Sarvodaya Sangh Through its Chairman, 26,Town Hall Road, Madurai - 625 001. 3.The District Registrar (Societies Registration - South) Palace Road, Madurai. ... Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the suspension order in MDSS 490/2010-2011 dated 28.01.2011 by the 1st respondent of the Madurai District Sarvodaya Sangh and to quash the same directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to continue with the same post as on 13.01.2011 in the Madurai District Sarvodaya Sangh. For petitioner : Mr.A.Shahul Hameed For respondents : Mr.S.Arunachalam for RR1 and RR2 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of suspension dated 28.01.2011 of the 1st respondent. The petitioner is the Treasurer of Madurai District Survodaya Sangh. He has been placed under suspension by the proceeding dated 28.01.2011 and the same is under challenge in this writ petition. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of suspension cannot stand since the term of the Secretary of the 1st respondent Sangh expired only on 16.03.2011. While so, the elected body cannot pass an order of suspension on 28.01.2011 before the expiry of the term of the then Secretary. He has relied on the bye-laws of Rule 9(d) and (i) of the Rules framed by the Madurai District Survodhaya Sangh. 4.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent in and by which, it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable against the Society and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is contended that the petitioner himself has filed the writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.204 of 2011, challenging the election and the said writ petition was dismissed on 06.01.2011 and hence, the petitioner cannot harbour that the present Management cannot pass an order of suspension. 5.I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition against the 1st respondent is not maintainable. In fact in W.P.(MD)No.6246 of 2007, by an order dated 27.09.2007, this Court has held that the writ petition is not maintainable. Para 7 and 8 of the order made therein, is extracted hereunder: " 7.Subsequent to that decision a Division Bench of this Court has held that apart from the Marappan's case (cited supra), the employees can invoke Article 21 of the Constitution and that may be an additional ground for entertaining of a Writ Petition. Therefore on a reference made by this Court a Full Bench was constituted and the Full Bench headed by the Honourable Chief Justice A.P.Shah in W.A.No.968 of 2007, dated 5.9.2007 in T.K.Ananda Sayanam .vs. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative societies, Vellore Region, Vellore and another repelled the contention. The relevant passage found in the judgement in paras 14,17 and 18 may be usefully extracted below: "14. Every illegal order of suspension or termination will not ipso facto amount to violation of Article 21. But there may be certain circumstances, as in a case of exclusion of an employee affected by HIV /AIDS or an employee who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 has been rendered immobile by an accident or cases where the rights of huge number of employees are involved or where their very existence is jeoparadized, where the employee may justifiably invoke Article 21 of the Constitution and seek protection by filing a writ petition. But every case of suspension or deprivation of wages for a period or termination will not entitle the employee of a co-operative society to move the Writ Court and contend that the right of protection under Article 21 has been violated. The employees have adequate statutory protection in law. 17. Again, as held by the Supreme Court in Raja Mahendra Pal's case(Cited supra)(reported in (1999(4)SCC 43), Article 21 while including of attributes of life cannot be extended to the extent that all sorts of claim relating to legal or contractual rights could be brought within its ambit ignoring the person aggrieved and the nature of the right violated. Though the cases cited may not invoke a co-operative society, the above position applies to the present case a fortiori. The cases where Supreme Court had invoked Article 21 as in Narendra Kumar Chandla's case(cited supra) or Konavalov's case(cited supra)(1994(4) SCC 460) were not grievances of an ordinary nature of a routine nature, as we have seen. 18. Therefore, every order affecting the service of a workman would not automatically amount to an infringement of his right under Article 21 enabling him to move the Writ Court. We cannot ignore the settled position that applications to secure performance of obligations owed by a Government or a society towards its employees or to resolve any private dispute cannot be decided on the basis of the Article 21. The appellant herein may perhaps have a good case on other grounds. But the order of suspension suspending him from the post of Secretary does not amount to infringement of Article 21 and while the decision in the Judgement of the Division bench in The Nazarath Urban Co- operative Bank Limited's case(cited supra) (Since reported in 2007(3) CTC 17) may be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 right on the facts of that case, the observations made regarding the application of Article 21 need to be and are clarified as above. The mere fact that he was kept under suspension beyond one year without the approval of the Registrar cannot be said to violate. It must be seen whether the invocation of Article 21 is justified in the particular case and whether the order challenged by a workman of a co-operative society is of such a nature that it would truly take away his right under Article 21 of the Constitution and that it is taken away otherwise than by due process of law." 5. In the light of the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed. This will not prevent the petitioner from moving the appropriate forum if any of vindictive persons to resolve their grievances. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs." Again in W.P.(MD) No.349 of 2010, this Court, by an order dated 15.03.2010, has held that the writ petition is not maintainable. 7.In view of the above stated position, I am not inclined to go into the other aspects. In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Registrar (Societies Registration – South), Palace Road, Madurai. 2.The Secretary, Madurai District Sarvodaya Sangh, 26, Town Hall Road,' Maurai - 625 001. 3.The Chairman, Madurai District Sarvodaya Sangh 26,Town Hall Road, Madurai - 625 001. +One CC to Mr.G.Arunachalam, Advocate, SR.No.6978 arul rl/5c – 30.3.2011 W.P.(MD)No.1727 of 2010 17.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/