S.S.Subramani, J. - (1.) Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Ref. No. Na. Ka. 10954/97-E, dated 10.11.1997, and consequential notice dated 12.11.1997 of the 2nd respondent and alleged resolutions of the Board of 3rd respondent dt. 19.11.1997, and quash the same.
(2.) The petitioner is a President of the 3rd respondent-society. The petitioner received a communication dated 3.11.1997 from the 1st respondent stating that he is not convening Board's meeting as per his alleged letter dated 23.3.1997 and report of Handloom Inspector dated 16.10.1997. A detailed explanation was given by the petitioner on 7.11.1997 to the 1st respondent, denying the allegation and further stating that he has received the communication dated 3.11.1997 on 4.11.1997 and has not received the previous communication dated 23.9.1997. He also informed the 1st respondent that he has properly convened and conducted the Board meetings on 3.7.1997, 16.7,1997, 30.7.1997, 6.8.1997 and 17.9.1997 with required quorum, and the four members mentioned in the reply have also attended all the meetings. But on 10.11.1997. the explanation offered by the petitioner was rejected and the 2nd respondent was directed to convene a special meeting to move 'no confidence motion' against the petitioner so as to remove the petitioner from the office of President and to submit a report on or before 18.11.1997. It is stated therein that the Vice-president and others have submitted a letter expressing no-confidence on him.
(3.) In the various grounds taken in the writ petition, it is stated that the impugned notices are invalid. The 2nd respondent seems to have served the order of the 1st respondent dated 10.11.1997 on 12.11.1997 along with the notice for special meeting on 19.11.1997. As per Rule 62 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative. Societies Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') copy of the requisition for the special meeting has to be communicated, but the same is not done in this case. It is further stated that as per the said Rule, the representation, if any, of the petitioner must also be given to the members of the board and the explanation also is to be discussed by the Board. Since no opportunity was given to the petitioner, he did not participate in the special meeting on 19.11.1997. It is said that the special meeting held on 19.11.1997 is invalid and unsustainable. It is further said that he has not received the alleged copy of requisition from the respondents. The entire order violates the principles of Natural Justice and hence invalid.;