Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. Contending that the order dated 27.3.1997, passed by the third respondent-Co-operative Society, removing the petitioner from service, on appeal before the second respondent-Deputy Registrar, was set aside by proceedings dated 14.2.1998, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join duty as Secretary as per the proceedings of the second respondent in his proceedings R.C.No.7067/96 A1 dated 14.2.1998 and to pay back-wages to the petitioner. 2. It is not in dispute that a disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by the third respondent- co-operative Society with regard to certain serious charges framed against him by proceedings of the third respondent dated 26.7.1995; an explanation was called for, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.8.1995; a domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of all the charges except charge No.3; a second show-cause notice for the proposed punishment viz., removal from service was issued to the petitioner on 15.2.1997, to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 9.3.1997, and finally, the petitioner was removed from service by proceedings dated 27.3.1997. 3. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the second respondent-Deputy Registrar on 9.4.1997, who allowed the appeal by proceedings dated 14.2.1998, in consequence of an even dated proceedings, dropping the very surcharge proceedings against the petitioner and others. Admittedly, a civil miscellaneous appeal is pending before the learned District Judge at Chingleput, viz., C.M.A.No.14 of 1998, against the proceedings dated 14.2.1998, dropping the surcharge proceedings. Alleging that the order of reinstatement dated 14.2.1998, passed by the second respondent-Deputy Registrar on the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal dated 27.3.1997 has become final, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Mandamus, as prayed for. 4. Alleging that the order of reinstatement dated 14.2.1998, passed by the second respondent-Deputy Registrar on the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal dated 27.3.1997 has become final, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Mandamus, as prayed for. 4. Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Government appearing on behalf of respondents-1 and 2, submits that against the order of removal dated 27.3.1997, passed by the third respondent, no appeal would lie before the second respondent-Deputy Registrar under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, and the only remedy available for the petitioner against the order of removal dated 27.3.1997 is under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, as the order of removal dated 27.3.1997 cannot be construed as a decision or award made under Sections 87(1), 90(2), (3), (4), 118, 119, 143, 144 or Section 167 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, as the case may be, and hence, the second respondent-Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain the very appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal dated 27.3.1997, and the consequential order dated 14.2.1998, made by the second respondent-Deputy Registrar in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal dated 27.3.1997, is without jurisdiction and is null and void. Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Pleader contends that the petitioner is not entitled to seek a writ of Mandamus as prayed for, when the petitioner has no right in law to implement the proceedings of the second respondent-Deputy Registrar dated 14.2.1998. 5. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 6. In view of the admitted fact that the order of removal dated 27.3.1997 passed by the third respondent-Cooperative Society is not a decision or award made under Sections 87(1), 90(2), (3), (4), 118, 119, 143, 144 or Section 167 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, as the case may be, I am satisfied that the second respondent-Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain the very appeal said to have been preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal dated 27.3.1997. The order of removal dated 27.3.1997, being the one made under the provisions of bye-laws of the third respondent- Cooperative Society, the only relief available for the petitioner, if he is so aggrieved by the order of removal dated 27.3.1997 passed by the third respondent, is by way of a revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 7. It is well settled in law that when the statute provides that a particular act has to be done only in a particular manner, the same is expected to be done in that manner alone, and any other manner is forbidden in law, as held a century ago in TAYLOR V. TAYLOR reported in (1876) 1 Ch D 426. There cannot be any exception to the above well-settled principles of law. 8. If that be so, I am convinced with the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the proceedings dated 14.2.1998, made by the second respondent-Deputy Registrar in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal dated 27.3.1997, is a nullity in the eye of law. It is also a well settled law that, to seek a writ of Mandamus, the person who seeks such relief, should satisfy that he is entitled for such relief, in the eye of law. When the petitioner could not substantiate his claim that he is entitled for the relief in the eye of law, he is not entitled to seek a writ of Mandamus as prayed for. On the other hand, it is not in dispute that C.M.A.No.14 of 1998 is pending before the learned District Judge at Chingleput against the order dated 14.2.1998, dropping the very surcharge proceedings, in consequence of which, the impugned order dated 14.2.1998, setting aside the order of removal dated 27.3.1997, was passed by the second respondent. Therefore, even on merits, I do not find any justification in the claim made by the petitioner for reinstating him in service, based on the proceedings dated 14.2.1998, setting aside the order of removal dated 27.3.1997. Hence, finding no merits in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner this writ petition is dismissed. 9. Therefore, even on merits, I do not find any justification in the claim made by the petitioner for reinstating him in service, based on the proceedings dated 14.2.1998, setting aside the order of removal dated 27.3.1997. Hence, finding no merits in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner this writ petition is dismissed. 9. Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal dated 27.3.1997, passed by the third respondent-Cooperative Society, has also been marked to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In view of the fact that by G.O.Ms.No.462, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 5.6.1990, the powers of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 153 of the Cooperative Societies Act have been delegated to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the petitioner is permitted to prefer a revision before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, if so advised, and on filing of such revision, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies shall pass appropriate order on the same, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in R.C.No.7067/96 A1 dated 14.2.1998, exercising the powers conferred under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, within ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.54044 of 2002 is also dismissed.