1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P (MD)No.13007 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.2 of 2011 1.Palsamy 2.Nagammal ...Petitioners Versus 1. The Secretary, MD. Spl. 116, Moonandipatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Moonandipatti, Madurai District. 2. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Usilampatti. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Sindhupatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the second respondent in his proceedings CAEP.22/2011-12 in ARC.51/2011-12 dated 18.10.2011 attaching the petitioners properties annexed in the impugned order and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.P.T.S.Narendra Vasan For R – 1 : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Government Advocate For R – 2 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, AGP O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ petition challenging a conditional attachment order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 167(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. 2.Heard Mr.P.T.S. Narendra Vasan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 2 and 3. 3.The first respondent herein has already raised a dispute in A.R.C.No.51/2011-12 under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 against the petitioners, who are the parents of one Jeyaram, who was employed as the Secretary of the first respondent / Society. The said Jeyaram died on 11.12.2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.Thereafter, surcharge proceedings were initiated and the matter is now pending before the second respondent herein. Pending further proceedings, the first respondent ordered attachment and the same has been ordered only by way of interim protection. Therefore, the same cannot be interfered with. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the parents had nothing to do with whatever the son did and that the very surcharge proceedings and the inquiry under Section 81 were initiated only after the demise of their son. Therefore, he contented that the properties of the petitioners cannot be made the subject matter of an order of attachment. 6.But the above contentions are contentions which can certainly be raised by the petitioners before the second respondent himself. These are questions of facts into which the second respondent is entitled to go into in terms of the provisions of the Act and in terms of the provisions of Rules 135, 137, etc. On these question of fact and in view of the fact that it is only a conditional interim order of protection, the impugned order need not be interfered with. Therefore, the Writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to raise all his objections before the second respondent and the second respondent is duty bound to consider the same. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1. The Secretary, MD. Spl. 116, Moonandipatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Moonandipatti, Madurai District. 2. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Usilampatti. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Sindhupatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. +1. CC to Mr.P.T.S.Narendravasan, Advocate, SR.No. 39841 nbj W.P (MD)No.13007 of 2011 16.11.2011 TR : 02.12.2011: 2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/