Judgment :- 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 Boards 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. 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. ( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is said that board members requested for convening a special meeting and there was a proposal to move noconfidence motion against the petitioner. No proper Board meeting was conducted by the petitioner on 3. 7. 1997. 16. 7. 1997, 30. 7. 1997. 6,8. 1997 and 17. 9. 1997, and no agenda was also sent to the Directors. Since no notice of meeting and agenda was sent to other Directors, they did not attend the meeting. It is said that on the requisition of 2/3rd members of the board and the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice, 1st respondent authorised the 2nd respondent to convene and preside over the special meeting of the Board to consider the no-confidence motion proposed against the petitioner. Rules have been properly followed and it is further said that the copy of requisition was sent to the petitioner and the representation/explanation of the petitioner was also served along with the notice for special meeting to all the Board Members on 12. 11. 1997. The petitioner did not participate in the special meeting. which was legally valid. It is, therefore. said that the writ petition has no merit and is to be dismissed. ( 5 ) A reply affidavit is also filed, wherein the petitioner has reiterated the contentions in the writ petition. 11. 1997. The petitioner did not participate in the special meeting. which was legally valid. It is, therefore. said that the writ petition has no merit and is to be dismissed. ( 5 ) A reply affidavit is also filed, wherein the petitioner has reiterated the contentions in the writ petition. He asserts that Rule 62 (3) of the Rules has been violated. ( 6 ) THE only question that requires consideration in the case is whether the procedure adopted by the respondents is correct or not. Rule 62 of the tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, deals with the procedure for removal of an elected office-bearer. It reads thus :"62. Removal of all elected office-bearer. (1) An elected office bearer of a society may be removed by a resolution expressing no-confidence in him passed in a special meeting of the Board. (2) No special meeting of the Board shall be convened unless a requisition in writing signed by not less than two-thirds of the existing members of the Board of the society at the time of such requisition who are eligible to vote at elections is presented to the Registrar. (3) As soon as such a requisition is received, the Registrar shall communicate a copy of the requisition to the office-bearer, concerned, calling upon him to make his representations, if any, within such time as may be specified by him. The Registrar shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt of such requisition arrange to convene a special meeting of the board of the society, for consideration of the resolution expressing no confidence in the office-bearer for which not less than three days notice shall be given. A copy or gist of the requisition and of the representation, if any, received from the office-bearer concerned shall also be sent to the members along with the notice for the special meeting of the board. (4) The special meeting of the board shall be presided over and conducted by the Registrar or any officer subordinate to him authorised in this behalf. (5) The quorum for such special board meeting shall be majority of the existing members of the board who are eligible to vote at elections. (4) The special meeting of the board shall be presided over and conducted by the Registrar or any officer subordinate to him authorised in this behalf. (5) The quorum for such special board meeting shall be majority of the existing members of the board who are eligible to vote at elections. (6) No resolution of the board passing the no-confidence motion against an elected office-bearer or a delegate of the society and removing him from the office shall be valid unless such a resolution is passed by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting at the special meeting of the board. (7) The society shall communicate a copy of such resolution to the office-bearer concerned who shall cease to be such office-bearer from the date of such resolution. " ( 7 ) IN this case, the petitioner has asserted that he has not received any notice of requisition and the Registrar has not sent a copy of the same to him. Anyway the requisition is not dated and from the various documents filed in this case, it is not seen that copy of requisition has been sent to the petitioner. After the finding of the Board, it is also seen that copy of the gist of requisition and the representation received from the office-bearer shall also be sent to the members along with the notice for special meeting. The petitioner says that this procedure as contemplate d in sub-rule (3) of Rule 62 of the Rules, has been violated and therefore, any decision taken on 19. 11. 1997 is invalid. The contention of the petitioner is disputed by the respondent. ( 8 ) THE notice dated 10. 11. 1997 is only an information saying that some members of the Society have informed the Registrar about the mis-management of the Society and they have no confidence in the petitioner. He, therefore, informed the petitioner that he proposed to hold a special meeting. He wanted a decision to be taken on or before 18. 11. 1997. On 12. 11. 1997. the petitioner was informed that a special meeting will be held on 19. 11. 1997 at 11. 30 a. m. On 19. 11. 1997. a resolution is passed. Resolution No. 3 deals with the removal of the President from the Presidentship. He wanted a decision to be taken on or before 18. 11. 1997. On 12. 11. 1997. the petitioner was informed that a special meeting will be held on 19. 11. 1997 at 11. 30 a. m. On 19. 11. 1997. a resolution is passed. Resolution No. 3 deals with the removal of the President from the Presidentship. All the six signatories to the resolution unanimously agree to remove the President of the society from the Presidentship. According to the petitioner, this procedure is in violation of Rule 62 (3) of the Rules. The main reason being, it has violated the principles of Natural Justice. ( 9 ) FROM the records produced before Court, I do not find that the registrar has in any where stated or informed the petitioner that he has communicated a copy of requisition to the petitioner signed by 2/3rd members of the Board and seeking for a representation from the petitioner. It is more or less in the nature of show cause. After getting notice of requisition and within 30 days, the Registrar has to convene the meeting to discuss no confidence. At that time, the members will have to be served the copy of the gist of the requisition and the representation received from the office-bearer. This is the procedure to be adopted as per Rule 62 (3) of the Rules, I do not find that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 62 (3) of the Rules is adopted. ( 10 ) RESPONDENTS are relying on the previous correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents, which deals with the convening of Board meeting on various dates. Explanation is offered from the petitioner for those notices. The explanation submitted for those notices cannot be treated as the representation given to the requisition notice. Again, the rule is very clear that the Registrar is bound to communicate the copy of requisition itself and not its gist. Why I am giving importance to this word is, in the notice dated 10. 11. 1997, the gist of no confidence is communicated to the petitioner and not the copy of requisition as contemplated in the Rules. The question of communicating the gist of requisition will arise only after receiving the representation/explanation from the office-bearer and when the same is placed before the members at the time of discussion. This procedure is not followed in this case. The question of communicating the gist of requisition will arise only after receiving the representation/explanation from the office-bearer and when the same is placed before the members at the time of discussion. This procedure is not followed in this case. ( 11 ) SINCE the Rule deals with the removal of an elected member, the same is to be strictly complied with. Any deviation from the Rules will make the meeting invalid. Since I hold that Rule 62 (3) of the Rules has not been complied with, I am constrained to quash the impugned orders. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, no order is necessary in the connected W. M. P. Petition allowed.