1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURBLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P(MD).No.5286 of 2011 M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 M.Jeyamani ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, O/o Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Karaikudi Circle, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Chief Manager, State Bank of India,Thallakullam Branch, Madurai. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent dated 29.10.2010 bearing O.D.E.P.No.2/2010-2011 S.C.No.1/2009-2010 and quash the same and directing the respondents to pay the Employees Provident Fund amount of Rs.1,18,058/- to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Janarthanam, AGP ORDER According to the petitioner, he was the Secretary in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society, Anna Nagar, Kovilur, Karaikudi Society. As against the surcharge proceedings, he filed an appeal and obtained an order of interim stay in I.A.No.19/2010 in C.M.A.(C.S).No.9 of 2010. According to the petitioner, even though an order of interim stay was granted, when he approached the bank to withdraw the deposited amount, he was refused by the bank on the ground that the first respondent had issued a prohibitory order on 29.10.2010 itself. Therefore, he was denied to withdraw the deposited amount. He would further contend that the order is per se illegal because the said prohibitory order was passed after the interim order was passed by the District Court. Hence, he has filed the Writ Petition. 2. Be that as it may. Even at the time of admission of the Writ Petition when this Court specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether the order of interim stay was communicated to the first respondent, the learned counsel specifically stated that it has been sent by the registered post as well as by the courier to the first respondent along with the order copy. 3. However, when this Court perused the documents produced by the petitioner in the typed set of papers, the order copy was couried as well as sent by the registered post along with the letter only on 30.10.2010, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 whereas, the order of attachment was passed as early as on 29.10.2010 and it was received by the petitioner as well as by the bank only on 29.10.2010 Therefore, when there was a prohibitory order by the first respondent, the bank has rightly refused to grant the money deposited by the petitioner and the petitioner having received the order copy and thereafter, only sent the copy of the stay order on 30.10.2010. Therefore, the Writ Petition, at this stage, is not maintainable as the order passed by the authority at that time is valid because the stay order was not communicated to the first respondent in time. Therefore, it is now always open to the petitioner to approach the respondents and bring to the notice of the respondents regarding the stay order and also raise all other points as regards the order of attachment. With the above said observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs. The petitioner wants to raise the issue under Section 10 of the Employees Provident Act of the Act, which is always open to him. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, O/o Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Karaikudi Circle, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Chief Manager,State Bank of India, Thallakullam Branch, Madurai. +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.17409 W.P(MD).No.5286 of 2011 ssm PA/16.06.2011/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/