Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, claiming that he is one of the members of the Food Corporation of India (South Zone) Employees’ Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the society”) praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the Chennai Metro Rail Limited, the first respondent herein, not to make the payment of compensation relating to the acquisition of the land and the building of the said society, situated at 114/171, Prakasam Salai, Chennai, to the third respondent, or his men, or to any other person, until the new Board of Directors assume charge after they are elected. 3. The petitioner has alleged that the first respondent had acquired the land and the building, belonging to the society, in collusion with its President, M.Sakthivel and two other Board of Directors of the Society. The relevant facts relating to the acquisition had not been disclosed to the members of the Society, with the ulterior motive of misappropriating the compensation amount, which was to be paid by the first respondent. It is only after the building, belonging to the Society, had been demolished, the petitioner had come to know about the acquisition proceedings. On acquisition of the land and the building, the first respondent had decided to pay a sum of Rs.3.30 crores, as the compensation amount, to the Society. 4. The petitioner had further stated that the period of the Board of Directors of the Society had expired, on 31.12.2009. However, timely action had not been taken to conduct the election to the Board of Directors, for the period, from 2010 to 2014. Further, the Secretary of the Society has been functioning in a manner detrimental to the interests of its members. In such circumstances, the members of the Society, including the petitioner, had been sending several representations, requesting the first respondent not to make any payment to the Secretary of the Association, or to any other person, as compensation for the land and the building belonging to the Society. 5. In such circumstances, the members of the Society, including the petitioner, had been sending several representations, requesting the first respondent not to make any payment to the Secretary of the Association, or to any other person, as compensation for the land and the building belonging to the Society. 5. It had been further stated that there has been a dispute relating to the election of the Board of Directors of the Society and therefore, certain cases are pending, with regard to the disputes, on the file of the Vth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.12081 of 2009, and on the file of this Court, in W.P.No.12280 of 2011. 6. It has also been stated that the Secretary of the Society and some of the Board of Directors had borrowed a heavy amount of loan from I.C.I.C.I. Bank, due to which the said bank had filed an Original Application No.112 of 2009, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Chennai, claiming nearly 29 crores. As such, if the compensation amount of nearly 3.30 crores is paid to the Secretary, or to any other person, said to be acting on behalf of the Society, the compensation amount payable to the society would be squandered away. Therefore, in the interest of the nearly 2700 members of the Society, the amount of compensation to be paid to the Society may be directed to be deposited in a Nationalized Bank, instead of paying the same to the Society, or to its Secretary T.Rajendran. 7. It has also been stated that some of the members of the Board, including M.Sakthivel, are facing departmental proceedings initiated against them, by the Management of the Food Corporation of India, Chennai, as recommended by the Central Bureau of Investigation, based on its report, dated 11.1.2011. A Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, in Crl.M.P.No.484 of 2011, had also been filed on the file of the VIIth Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai, acting as a special Court for the cases relating to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner and some other members of the Society, the fourth respondent has initiated steps for taking appropriate action against those, who are attempting to misappropriate the funds of the society. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner and some other members of the Society, the fourth respondent has initiated steps for taking appropriate action against those, who are attempting to misappropriate the funds of the society. In such circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the first respondent to deposit the compensation amount, relating to the acquisition of the land and building belonging to the Society, to the Secretary of the Society, or to any other person. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first and the second respondents, it has been stated that the lands belonging to the Society, to an extent of 4650 sq.ft., in T.S.No.5636/1,2 and 3, in V.O.C. Nagar Village, Fort-Tondairpet Taluk, Chennai District, had been acquired for the Chennai Metro Rail Project. Based on the land acquisition proceedings, for the acquisition of the land in question, belonging to the Society, an award had been passed, in award No.2 of 2011, dated 8.12.2011. As the details of the Bank loan and its repayment, by the land owner were not known to the first respondent, at the time of the passing of the award, the land acquisition officer concerned had passed an order stating that the compensation amount of Rs.3,37,33,655/- should be kept in a Revenue Deposit. Accordingly, the compensation amount had been kept in the Revenue Deposit. 9. It had been further stated that the pending court proceedings, referred to by the petitioner, relate to the election of the Board of Directors of the Society and they have nothing to do with the land acquisition proceedings or the payment of compensation, by the first respondent. Further, the cases, which are said to be pending against the third respondent, do not have any bearing or connection, in respect of the land acquisition proceedings and the payment of compensation to the owners of the land. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, the averments and allegations made by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are incorrect and false. 11. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, the averments and allegations made by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are incorrect and false. 11. The facts relating to the shifting of the office of the Society, during the month of January, 2012, and the acquisition of the land and the building belonging to the Society, by the first respondent, were also known to the members of the Society. 12. It had also been stated that the disputes, which had arisen, relating to the election of the Board of Directors, has nothing to do with the payment of compensation for the acquisition of the land and the building belonging to the Society. The compensation amount would be deposited only in the name of the Society and not in the name of the third respondent. Due to the deposit of the amount in the Revenue Deposit, the society has already lost a considerable amount of money, payable as interest. The first respondent had deposited the compensation amount in the Revenue Deposit, instead of deposing the same in the name of the Society, in a fixed deposit, in a Nationalized Bank, earning a substantial amount of interest, due to the selfish and motivated action of the petitioner. 13. It had also been stated that the petitioner, along with some other persons, had stolen all the documents relating to the Society, at knife point, when they were being shifted to a new premises, by a lorry. Therefore, a complaint had been lodged before the B2, Esplanade Police Station and the matter had also been brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Police. As such, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that the third respondent is not a trust-worthy person and therefore, the deposit of compensation amount in the name of the Society would be inappropriate. There are a number of cases filed against the third respondent, who is the Secretary of the Society. While so, it would not be appropriate for the first respondent to deposit the compensation amount, in the name of the Society, before the new Board of Directors resume office. 15. There are a number of cases filed against the third respondent, who is the Secretary of the Society. While so, it would not be appropriate for the first respondent to deposit the compensation amount, in the name of the Society, before the new Board of Directors resume office. 15. He had also submitted that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, in the interest of all the members of the Society, for whose benefit, the Society is functioning. Therefore, the compensation amount paid by the first respondent should be safeguarded from being misused by the third respondent and his men and agents. Therefore, this Court may be pleased to direct the first respondent not to deposit the compensation amount in the name of the Society. 16. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had submitted that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, against whom certain serious allegations are pending, only with a mala fide motive of tarnishing the fair image of the third respondent, who is the Secretary of the Society. The petitioner has raised several disputes in the various Courts of law, with regard to the election of the Board of Directors of the Society. While so, it would not be open to the petitioner to make a claim that the compensation amount should not be deposited in the name of the Society, without the concurrence of the other members of the Society. In fact, it would always be open to the petitioner to contest the election, to be held for electing the Board of Directors of the Society, as and when such election is held. However, it would not be open to the petitioners to file a writ petition, before this Court, as if it is a public interest litigation, claiming it to be in the interest of nearly 2700 of the members of the Society. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to raise certain personal disputes, by washing dirty linen in public. There has been a heavy monetary loss due to the deposit of the compensation amount in the revenue deposit, as the said amount does not earn any interest. The financial loss caused to the Society, by the petitioner, by filing the present writ petition, without having proper reasons to do so should be recovered from him. There has been a heavy monetary loss due to the deposit of the compensation amount in the revenue deposit, as the said amount does not earn any interest. The financial loss caused to the Society, by the petitioner, by filing the present writ petition, without having proper reasons to do so should be recovered from him. In such circumstances, this court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition, as it is devoid of merits, by imposing heavy costs on the petitioner, for having caused a serious financial loss to the Society and to its members. 17. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by him, in the present writ petition. 18. From the records available, it is clear that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition only with a mala fide motive to tarnish the image of the third respondent, who is the Secretary of the Society. Even though certain other cases are pending relating to the election of the Board of Directors of the Society, the petitioner has raised the dispute before this Court, in the present writ petition, praying for a direction to restrain the first respondent from depositing the compensation amount in the name of the Society. 19. It has not been shown, by the petitioner, as to how it would be possible for the third respondent to misuse the compensation amount deposited in the name of the Society. Further, the petitioner seems to be the only person, out of the nearly 2700 members of the Society, to demand that the compensation amount should not be deposited in the name of the Society, due to the misplaced apprehension that the amount deposited by the first respondent would be misused and misappropriated by the third respondent and his men. 20. Even though the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is said to be in the interest of the Society and its members, it is clear that the petitioner has attempted to misuse the process of law, for his personal purpose of washing dirty linen in public, in order to tarnish the image of the third respondent. 20. Even though the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is said to be in the interest of the Society and its members, it is clear that the petitioner has attempted to misuse the process of law, for his personal purpose of washing dirty linen in public, in order to tarnish the image of the third respondent. The allegations against the third respondent, if any, could be proved by the petitioner, before the appropriate forum, based on sufficient evidence. However, it would not be open to the petitioner to raise such issues before this Court, by invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. As the petitioner had chosen to agitate certain irrelevant issues, wasting the precious time of this Court, without having sufficient reasons to do so, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition, with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) payable by the petitioner to the Food Corporation of India (South Zone) Employees’ Co-operative Society Limited, Chennai. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, with exemplary costs, as noted above. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.