IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:15.02.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.40060 of 2006 1.G.Thygarajan 2.N.Subramanian ...Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Secretary Cooperation, Food & Consumer Protection Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The Registrar of Cooperatives "NVN Maligai" No.170, E.V.R,.Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 3. The Additional Registrar/Special officer(IC) "NVN Maligai" No.170, E.V.R,.Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 4.M.Kuppusamy 5.R.Murugesan 6.C.Shanmugam 7.P.Seventhiraj 8.S.Stanis laus ...Respondents R4 and R5 impleaded as per order dated 17.11.2006 by VRSJ in M.P.No.3/06 in W.P.No.40060/2006. R6 impleaded as per order dated 22.12.2006 by VRSJ in M.P.4 of 2006 in W.P.No.40060/06 R7 and 8 impleaded as per Court order dated 22.12.2008 in M.P.No.5 OF 2006 IN W.P.No.40060 of 2006 by NPVJ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from in any manner granting any exemption or relaxation in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ violation of statutory Rules for appointment of personnels to the posts of Directors in the third respondent Cooperative Union forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondent Nos.1& 2 : Mr.A.Arumugam Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent No.4 & 5 : Mr.S.M.Subramaniam For Respondent No.6 : Mr.Amalraj For Respondents 7 & 8 : Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan O R D E R The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first and second respondents to forbear them from granting any exemption or relaxation in violation of statutory rules for appointment of personnel to the posts of Directors in the third respondent Co-operation Union. 2. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner did not implead those two individuals for whom the exemption is sought for by the third respondent society. Subsequently, the said two individuals (1)Mr.M.Kuppusamy and R.Murugesan got themselves impleaded as Respondents 4 and 5 by order dated 17.11.2006. 3. The case of the petitioner was that the third respondent cannot appoint a person, then later on asked for exemption from the essential qualification. 4. This Court by order dated 22.12.2006 recorded that the posts had been classified and these posts had not been filled up and a further direction was also given to the respondents not to fill up the posts. Subsequently, interim orders were also made absolute. 5. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that one of the impleaded respondent is already retired and the other one is only surviving in service. 6. On notice from this Court, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first and second respondents dated 19.02.2008. The third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit dated 11.11.2006. In response to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on behalf of the respondents, relaxation was applied upon under Section 170 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Societies Act. Under the said provision, the State Government have powers to grant exemption to any registered Society from any of the provisions other than Section 88(1)(b) and 89(1) of the Act and Rules. It is also provided that such a provision of rule shall apply to such society with modification as may be specified therein. The claim of the third respondent society was that they had made an application to the State Government to grant exemption. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the State Government lacks power to grant exemption. 7. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that such a power of exemption cannot be availed after appointment of the respondents 4 and 5. A reading of such provision does not indicate that any such exemption can be granted only before appointment and not after appointment. In any event, the fundamental question regarding the maintainability of the writ petition has not been answered. Admittedly, the third respondent is also a registered Cooperative Society and such a writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the larger bench decision of this Court in K.MARAPPAN VS. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2006(4) CTC 689). Therefore, as and when the State Government grants exemption in terms of the provisions of the Act, the petitioner can revive if he is still aggrieved about such exemption. With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 8. Mr.Amalraj appeared on behalf of the sixth respondent. Pending writ petition, the sixth respondent sought for posting in the said post . When the matter came up on 06.01.2009, this Court rejected the said prayer. Now, after the final disposal of the writ petition, the 6th respondent cannot make any such request because he is only a respondent in this writ petition and he cannot get any relief in this writ petition which is filed by another party. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar VJY To 1.The Secretary Cooperation, Food & Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Registrar of Cooperatives "NVN Maligai" No.170, E.V.R,.Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 3. The Additional Registrar/Special officer(IC) "NVN Maligai" No.170, E.V.R,.Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 1 cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.9962 1 cc to Mr.P.Anbarasan, Advocate, Sr.No.9731 1 cc to M/s.A.Amal Raj, Advocate, Sr.No.9699 1 cc to Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, Advocate, Sr.No.10182 1 cc to Mr.K.V.Anantha Krushan, Advocate, Sr.No.10183 W.P.NO.40060 of 2006 RS {CO} TP/25.2.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/