High Court · 2025

C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 27.03.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARC.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025andC.M.P.(MD) No.3203 of 2025The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Tiruchendur... Revision Petitioner/ 1st RespondentVs.1.T.Murugesapandian.. 1st Respondent/Appellant2.TC 26 Kurumbur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Through its Secretary... 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Respondent3.J.Devaraj.. 3rd Respondent/ 3rd Respondent4.Jancy Chandra Gandha Gnanabai.. 4th Respondent/ 4th RespondentPrayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2024 passed in C.M.A.(CS) No.20 of _________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 20252023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi against Tha.Va.1/2022-2023 order dated 09.12.2022.For Petitioner :Mr.M.AjmalkhanAdditional Advocate Generalassisted by Mr.S.ShanmugavelAdditional Government PleaderFor Respondents:No appearanceORDERThis civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tiruchendur against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal filed under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1983”) against an order passed under Section 87 of the Act, 1983.2. The Deputy Registrar, who is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, is the person authorised by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to discharge his functions under Section 87 of the Act, 1983. The Deputy _________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025Registrar exercising power under Section 87 of the Act, 1983 would be acting as a quasi-judicial authority and therefore, this Court has entertained a doubt about the maintainability of the civil revision petition at the instance of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies.3. Accordingly, Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted the Court and submitted that the Deputy Registrar exercising powers under Section 87 of the Act, 1983 would be discharging the quasi-judicial functions and he has also drawn the attention of this Court to sub-section (4) of Section 87 of the Act, 1983, which reads as under:“87(4). The Registrar or the person authorised by him shall, when acting under this section, have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely:-(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;(b) requiring the discovery and production of any documents;(c) reception of evidence on affidavits;_________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025(d) requisitioning any public record from any Court or office;(e) issuing Commission for examining of witnesses.”4. From the perusal of sub-section (4) of Section 87 of the Act, 1983, it is fortified that the Deputy Registrar or the Registrar exercising power under Section 87 of the Act, 1983 is conferred with powers of a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, any power exercised under Section 87 of the Act, 1983 would definitely fall within the scope of quasi-judicial function.5. The learned Additional Advocate General also further brought to the notice of this Court a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India vs. Delhi International Airport Ltd. And others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2923, wherein the Honb'le Apex Court after having discussed the entire case law in elaborate, came to the conclusion that the authority discharging the quasi-judicial function cannot be arrayed as a party respondent to the appeal or revision _________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025filed against its orders. The relevant portion from the said decision reads as under:“33. In view of the above discussion, the following principles emerge:a. An authority (either a judicial or quasi-judicial authority) must not be impleaded in an appeal against its order if the order was issued solely in exercise of its “adjudicatory function”;b. An authority must be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal against its order if it was issued in exercise of its regulatory role since the authority would have a vital interest in ensuring the protection of public interest; andc. An authority may be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal against its order where its presence is necessary for the effective adjudication of the appeal in view of its domain expertise.”6. Here is a converse case where the authority who concluded the proceedings as a 'quasi-judicial authority' has come before this Court by filing the present civil revision petition. Once it is concluded that the quasi-_________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025judicial authority cannot be impleaded as a respondent to a proceedings, such a quasi-judicial authority shall be not entitled to initiate the further proceedings initiated against the order passed by the said quasi-judicial authority.7. In the light of the above, this civil revision petition cannot be entertained at the instance of the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, who acted as a quasi-judicial authority and exercised power under Section 87 of the Act, 1983. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the aggrieved society to take appropriate steps against the order under revision. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.8. However, the learned Additional Advocate General, has expressed an apprehension that the Society, which is in fact aggrieved by an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may not choose to contest the said order, as the persons who are responsible for such mis-management or misappropriation would be continue to be in management of the said Society._________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 20259. No doubt, such a situation may arise in a particular facts and circumstances of the case, but that would not deprive the authorities under the Act, 1983 to take appropriate action against the persons who are mis-managing such societies. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies is always competent to initiate appropriate action against the Cooperative Societies who are found to be involved in mis-managing the affairs or failed to protect the interest of the Society.27.03.2025NCC : Yes/NoIndex : Yes/NoABR_________Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.582 of 2025MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.ABRTo1.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tiruchendur.2.The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.582 of 202527.03.2025_________Page 8 of 8