1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.5660 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 Saraswathi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 2.The Special Officer, Q.633, Nerkuppai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Nerkuppai, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Auction Notice dated 25.04.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.G.Murugan O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the auction notice, brought in selling the property in S.No.82/21C to an extent of 1680 Sq.ft with tiled house. Pursuant to the execution of the decree in C.C.No.31/2005-06, a writ petition came to be filed. 2.When the matter came up on 01.06.2011, this Court granted Notice of Motion. Pending notice, an order of interim stay was also granted for a period of three weeks. Subsequently, there is nothing on record to show that it was extended. 3.On notice from this Court, the second respondent Co-operative society, has filed a counter affidavit objecting to the maintainability of the writ petition. In the light of the larger Bench judgment of this Court in (K.Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal-636 001 and another) reported in (2006 (4) CTC 689). More importantly, it was stated that the petitioner is the Mother- in-law of one Marcus and husband of Tmt.Vairavapandi, who is the daughter of the present petitioner. The said Marcus, while acting as a secretary of the second respondent Society, has misappropriated huge amount to the tune of Rs.7,58,000/- in collusion with the then Board of Management and caused loss to the Society. When subsequent enquiry held under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, these facts were brought to the notice. When the said Marcus came to know about these proceedings, he bought the property from out of the misappropriated funds in the name of his wife apprehending that the property may be further proceeded. The wife of the said Marcus, the daughter of the present petitioner Tmt.Vairavapandi, gave a gift deed in favour of her mother, so as to escape the attachment proceedings. If the petitioner is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 apprehending that such an attachment was invalid and it was independently acquired property, then Rule 135 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules framed under Section 167 the petitioner has to apply before the sale officer, wherein the sale officer will have to go into the question that the property was not liable for attachment and till such investigation, he can postpone the sale and if any party is still aggrieved by any rejection of such claim, it is not as if the act do not provide a relief to such claimant. Under Rule 135 r/w Section 167, a right of appeal provided to the Co-operative Tribunal presided by the Senior District Judge. The said Tribunal has power to go both the questions of law and fact and also got power to grant interim orders. 4. But, on the contrary, it is seen from the records that the petitioner has already instituted a Suit before the District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathur, in O.S.No.193 of 2009, seeking for a declaration that the auction initiated by the respondent Co- operative Society and the Deputy Registrar, Karaikudi, was not valid and the petitioner's properties are not entitled for brought on sale through distrained proceedings. Subsequent to filing of the Suit and getting a number from the civil Court, the petitioner given a paper publication through a lawyer. It is fairly submitted that the civil Court has not granted any interim orders restraining the auction sale. The petitioner having preferred such a remedy before the civil Court, cannot file a writ petition in respect of the same subject matter. 5. The petitioner has advised by her lawyer to file a Suit not withstanding the bar under Section 156 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. She has to suffer the consequences and this Court cannot help as a stopgap arrangement, when a substantial matters are pending before some other Court. Further, as rightly contended by the respondents, the writ petition is not maintainable, in the light of the larger Bench Judgment of this Court in (K.Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal-636 001 and another) reported in (2006 (4) CTC 689) No case has been made out. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 2.The Special Officer, Q.633, Nerkuppai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Nerkuppai, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. +1CC TO M/S.V.KANNAN, ADVOCATE SR.36221 Mpk SR : 02.11.2011 : 2p/4c W.P.(MD)No.5660 of 2011 19.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/