JUDGMENT 1. The prayer made in this writ petition is as follows:- “For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature of writ, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in the request of the petitioner, dated 04.03.2009 and to not to allow the 2nd respondent to interfere in the right of the petitioner in his her properties in Survey Nos.294/3B, 297/15B, 298/4, 297/10 in Jambuduraikottai Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District ad measuring 40 cents, 11 cents, 28 cents and 5-1/2 cents and to pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper and thus render justice. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she purchased the agricultural lands in S.Nos.294/3B, 297/15B, 298/4, 297/10 in Jambuduraikottai Village, measuring 40 cents, 11 cents, 28 cents and 5-1/2 cents respectively from and out of her own income. The petitioner's husband was appointed as 'Junior Clerk' in the 2nd respondent society. The first respondent initiated proceedings under section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and passed surcharge orders against the six employees of the second respondent's society, including the petitioner's husband. He challenged the said proceedings in C.M.A.S.C.No.17 of 2009 and also filed an application for interim order. As there was no interim order passed, the second respondent attempted to interfere with the property to execute the surcharge proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. In the course of such attempt, the petitioner's absolute property was also attached and therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the first respondent under Rule 135(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Society Rules, 1983, objecting against the action initiated in respect of the petitioner's property also. The said representation sent on 04.03.2009 was not yet disposed of. In the meantime, as the petitioner's property is sought to be interfered with by way of attachment proceedings, she has filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit separately. The first respondent had stated that the petitioner's husband filed an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal against the surcharge proceedings in CMACS No.17 of 2009 and the same is pending. Meanwhile, when the petitioner's husband and the petitioner tried to sell the immovable property, attachment proceedings were taken against them. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit separately. The first respondent had stated that the petitioner's husband filed an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal against the surcharge proceedings in CMACS No.17 of 2009 and the same is pending. Meanwhile, when the petitioner's husband and the petitioner tried to sell the immovable property, attachment proceedings were taken against them. 4. It is also stated by the first respondent that the petitioner had filed an application under Rule 135 of the said Rules against the proceedings initiated against her property and the said representation is still pending before the first respondent. 5. The second respondent has also stated that the petitioner's husband was an employee and subjected to disciplinary action and terminated from service, as he was jointly and severally liable for misappropriation. Attachment proceedings were initiated against the property, which is the subject matter in this writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 7. The case of the petitioner is that the property belongs to her absolutely is subjected to attachment proceedings and aggrieved against the same, she already approached the first respondent by way of her representation, dated 04.03.2009. 8. It is also admitted by the first respondent and the said representation is still pending and not adjudicated upon. It appears that at the time of ordering notice, in this writ petition on 23.03.2010, an order of status quo was granted by this court and it is stated that the said order is still in force. 9. Considering all these facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that the petitioner's representation is still pending before the first respondent, without going into the other merits of the matter, I only direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.03.2009 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. As already this court has ordered status quo at the time of ordering notice, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo till the representation given by the petitioner is disposed of by the first respondent. 11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.