P.D.Dinakaran, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner has prayed for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to direct the second respondent to implement the orders of the first respondent dated 13.6.1997. wherein it is alleged that the first respondent has cancelled the proceedings dated 6.6.1997 of the Second respondent- by which the second respondent has transferred the petitioner from Iruthukottai to Kudimenahalli.
(3.) Admittedly, the second respondent is a Co-operative Society. Even assuming that the petitioner, as on date, had an order is his favour, wherein the first respondent had cancelled the order of the second respondent dated 6.6.1997, this Court cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the second respondent which is a Co-operative Society in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in. (i) 1994 WLR 512 Philip Jeyasing v. JT Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (ii) 1994 WLR 516 A Voradarajan v. Registrar of Co-operative Society. and (iii) 1991 (2) LW 409 P. Kannan, H. Tamilarasan. and 3 others v. Director of Sugars. Office of the Director of Sugars, etc.;