Judgment 1. The petitioner in all these three writ petitions is one Mr. M. Marimuthu, President of the Board of Directors of the Pudukkottai District Education Department Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society (since superseded), Santhanathapuram, Pudukkottai District. 2. In W.P.(MD) No.2680 of 2014, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notice, dated 10.02.2014, issued by the first respondent Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Santhanathapuram, Pudukkottai District, calling upon the petitioner and other Board of Directors to show cause, within a period of seven days, as to why the Pudukkottai District Education Department Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society (herein after it may be referred to as 'the Society') should not be superseded. 3. In W.P.(MD) No.2875 of 2014, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of declaration to declare that the meeting convened by the third respondent Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies, on 05.02.2014, pursuant to the directions given by the second respondent Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, as illegal and non-est in law. 4. In W.P.(MD) No.3523 of 2014, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order, dated 24.02.2014, passed by the respondent Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, superseding the Society, by exercising the power conferred under Section 88(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (herein after it may be referred to as 'the Act') and appointing an Administrator to administer the affairs of the Society. 5. Though three writ petitions have been filed, the petitioner essentially challenges the supersession of the Society and the procedure adopted in the decision making process. The pleadings are identical in all the three writ petitions except for the grounds of challenge in each of the writ petitions. Therefore, this Court would proceed to refer the facts as averred in W.P. (MD) No.3523 of 2014. 6. The petitioner was elected as a President of the Society along with ten Directors and assumed the management of the Society on 09.05.2013. It is stated that till 03.01.2014, the Society has granted loans to it's members to the tune of Rs.219.00 Lakhs and recovered dues to the tune of Rs.234.00 Lakhs. Further, it is stated that there are 112 newly enrolled members and collected Rs.1.46 Lakhs as share capital and Rs.2.46 Lakhs as thrift deposits. It is stated that till 03.01.2014, the Society has granted loans to it's members to the tune of Rs.219.00 Lakhs and recovered dues to the tune of Rs.234.00 Lakhs. Further, it is stated that there are 112 newly enrolled members and collected Rs.1.46 Lakhs as share capital and Rs.2.46 Lakhs as thrift deposits. During the six month period, 12 Board Meetings were convened and one General Body Meeting was held on 20.01.2013, in which the Society declared 14% dividend to the members and 14% interest to the thrift deposits of the members. Therefore, it is claimed that within a short span of time, the elected Board of Directors have discharged their duties efficiently for the well-being of the Society. 7. Whileso, a notice was issued, on 10.02.2014, by the Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, under Section 88(1) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner and the other Board of Directors to show cause as to why the elected Board should not be superseded. This show cause notice is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(MD) No.2680 of 2014. In the said show cause notice it is alleged that the petitioner, being the sole signatory of the Cheques, has drawn a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from the Bank and remitted the money back into the Bank on 04.09.2013 and 05.09.2013 and in this regard an enquiry was ordered under Section 81 of the Act. A report has been submitted by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Pudukkottai, recommending action against the petitioner and the petitioner has also explained the transactions by stating that the amount was drawn to disburse the sanctioned loan amount to the members, as there was a delay in disbursement of funds by the Pudukkottai Central Cooperative Bank, the lone financing Bank of the Society, and after it was pointed out that the funds of the Society should not be utilized for lending, immediately the funds were remitted back into the account of the Society with interest. The enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry, under Section 81 of the Act, has recorded the statements from the members of the Society, who had borrowed the sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner would state that he has neither misappropriated the money nor caused any loss or damage to the Society. 8. The enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry, under Section 81 of the Act, has recorded the statements from the members of the Society, who had borrowed the sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner would state that he has neither misappropriated the money nor caused any loss or damage to the Society. 8. The petitioner would further allege that the Pudukkottai District Central Cooperative Bank, which is the lone financing agency for the Society, did not promptly release the funds and as a result of which the members of the Society were aggrieved and two of the members also resigned on 04.01.2014 and several others submitted their letters of resignation complaining about the non-disbursal of the loan by the Pudukkottai District Central Cooperative Bank. 9. Further, the petitioner would state that when the copies of the resignation letters were sent to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, without calling for any report from the Society, the Deputy Registrar ordered for a special meeting on 05.02.2014 by invoking the power under Section 33(15) of the Act. The decision taken in the meeting convened on 05.02.2014, pursuant to the notice dated 31.01.2014, is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(MD) No.2875 of 2014. 10. The petitioner would further state that the Sub-Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who had conducted the special meeting, is not empowered to convene the special meeting and such special meeting shall be conducted by the Managing Director in consultation with the President of the Society, as contemplated under Section 33(14) of the Act. Therefore, it is stated that the notice, dated 05.02.2014, is without jurisdiction and the meeting so convened is ab initio void. 11. In the notice, dated 31.01.2014, it was stated that seven Board of members have submitted their letters of resignation and therefore the same has to be considered and a special meeting is going to be convened on 05.02.2014, under Section 33(15) of the Act, and all the members of the Board of Management were requested to participate in the meeting without fail. The petitioner sent his objections, on 03.02.2014, pointing out that the convening of the special meeting, by invoking Section 33(15) of the Act, is illegal. 12. The petitioner sent his objections, on 03.02.2014, pointing out that the convening of the special meeting, by invoking Section 33(15) of the Act, is illegal. 12. On the same date, another notice was also issued by the President of the Society to all the Board of Members to attend the meeting on 10.02.2014 to reiterate the request to the Pudukkottai District Central Cooperative Bank, seeking release of the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,59,60,000/-. The meeting was convened on 05.02.2014 as scheduled and a decision was taken accepting the resignation of all the seven Board of Members. The petitioner seeks for declaration, in W.P.(MD) No.2875 of 2014, declaring the decision taken in the meeting convened on 05.02.2014 as non-est in law. 13. It is further stated that after the resolution is passed on 05.02.2014 accepting the resignation of the seven Board of Members, the activities of the Society came to a standstill and when the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.2680 of 2014 is pending before this Court, an order, dated 24.02.2014, was passed by the Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, superseding the Society. Challenging the same, W.P.(MD) No.3523 of 2014 has been filed the petitioner. 14. Mr. P. Ganapathi Subramanian, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, after making elaborate reference to the facts, dates and events, submitted that the entire proceedings, initiated by the Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, commencing from the date of notice i.e., 10.02.2014 and culminating in the order of supersession, dated 24.02.2014, are illegal, against the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, tainted with mala fide and ab intio void and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 15. The learned counsel referred to Section 33(14) of the Act and submitted that the managing director or the chief executive officer, in consultation with the president of Board, may at any time, call a special meeting of the Board and shall call such a meeting within fifteen days of a requisition in that behalf, from not less than one third of the members of the Board; or the Registrar, for which a notice of three clear days shall be given to the members of the Board. 16. 16. Laying emphasis on the term 'consultation' occurring in Section 33 (14)(a) of the Act, it is submitted that there has been no consultation with the petitioner, who was the elected President of the Board and therefore the notice itself is defective. Furthermore, the notice is also in violation of Clause (i) of Section 33(14)(a) of the Act. Further, it is submitted that in terms of sub-section (15) of Section 33 of the Act, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies has been authorized to convene a special meeting by himself and he has no authority to delegate the power to a subordinate officer in the rank of Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the special meeting having been convened by the Sub Registrar is without jurisdiction and void in law. 17. It is further submitted that the entire proceedings have emanated from a report said to have been submitted under Section 81 of the Act and the said report has not been communicated to the Society, as contemplated under Rule 104 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1983 (herein after it may be referred to as 'the Rules'). Therefore, without communicating the said report, taking action based on such report, is not sustainable in law and therefore the notice, dated 10.02.2014, is liable to be set aside. Further, it is submitted that the Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to take a decision in respect of resignation of the Board of members of a registered Society, while such a power has been vested with the Board of management. Further, it is submitted that no reasons have been assigned in the notice, dated 10.02.2014, as required to be given under Clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 88(1) of the Act, which deals with supersession of Board and the circumstances under which such power could be exercised. 18. Further, it is submitted that no reasons have been assigned in the notice, dated 10.02.2014, as required to be given under Clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 88(1) of the Act, which deals with supersession of Board and the circumstances under which such power could be exercised. 18. It is further submitted that Rule 60 of the Rules deals with resignation from membership of the Board and in terms of sub-rule (1) to Rule 60, a member of the Board may resign his membership of the Board by sending his resignation to the Board and such resignation shall be placed before the next meeting of the Board by the President of the society and in the instant case, the seven Board of members straightaway sent their letters of resignation to the Deputy Registrar and it is the Board, which has to decide whether or not to accept their resignation in terms of Sub-Rule (2) to Rule 60 of the Rules and be communicated to the concerned members within seven days of the decision of the Board, but not later than sixty days from the date of receipt of the resignation letter in the office of the society. Therefore, it is submitted that the power is vested with the Board and the time limit for communicating the decision is sixty days and in any event the same does not empower the Sub Registrar to convene a special meeting and pass a resolution. 19. Further, it is submitted that there is a gross procedural violation in the manner and which the Sub Registrar conducted the meeting, in which the members, who resigned, have adopted the resolution of their resignation and there is no such power under the Act or the Rules. 20. By referring to the observation made by the Joint Registrar in the impugned order, dated 24.02.2014, wherein he has stated that the petitioner cannot ride two horses, is unwarranted and has to be deprecated and thereby finding fault with the petitioner for having approached this Court seeking redressal of his grievance. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner had sought for an adjournment by three weeks on account of a bereavement in the family and without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. 21. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner had sought for an adjournment by three weeks on account of a bereavement in the family and without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. 21. It is further submitted that in Paragraph No.16 of the counter affidavit, the Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has stated that the authority is empowered to take action, under Section 33 of the Act and such power has not been given, under Section 33 of the Act, the Sub Registrar has no jurisdiction to convene the meeting. Further, it is contended that the power of delegation does not empower the Deputy Registrar to delegate the power under Section 33 of the Act to a subordinate authority and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated. 22. Further, it is submitted that in terms of the second proviso to Section 88(1) of the Act, the Board of any unregistered society shall not be superseded, where there is no Government shareholding or loan or financial assistance or any guarantee by the Government. Therefore, it is submitted that the proceedings are illegal. 23. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision of this Court in Vallipattu Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank v. Registrar of Co.-op. Societies, Chennai, reported in 1998 (II) CTC 351 , for the proposition that the consultation as contemplated under Section 88 of the Act should be effective consultation and not an empty formality. 24. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Honourable Full Bench of this Court in the case in K.Marappan v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal & another, reported in2006-4-L.W.495 and submitted that giving of loans is not the financial assistance, as contemplated in the tests laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 . 25. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Selvaraj, V & others v. The Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles & others, reported in 2000 Writ L.R. 379, and it is submitted that in the absence of requisition from 2/3rd of the existing members, subsequent convening of the meeting is illegal and the decision will have no legal sanctity. 26. 26. By referring to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112 , it is submitted that the State has no administrative control over the day-to-day affairs of the Society. 27. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision in K.A. Arangarasu and others v. The Joint Registrar of Co.-op Societies and another, reported in 2001 Writ L.R. 80 and submitted that without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report, under Section 81 of the Act and without affording opportunity to explain the proposed disqualification, the show cause notice proposing supersession itself is bad in law. 28. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Arignar Anna Weavers Co-op, Society Ltd., v. State of T.N., reported in AIR 1999 Madras 254, and submitted that the Board has been duly elected to manage the society and the democratic management can be removed from the office only after fully satisfying the provisions of the statute. 29. In support of the contention that sufficient time was not given for the Board to consider the resignation and the same itself would vitiate the proceedings, reliance has been placed on the decision in Sadasiva Reddiar v. Duraiswami Reddiar, reported in 1966 (2) MLJ 366 . 30. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in K.Thangavelu v. Jt. Registrar Co-op. Society, reported in AIR 1976 Madras 280, wherein it has been held that issue of show cause notice, without consultation, is not illegal, but consultation is necessary before final order of supersession is passed. 31. The learned counsel relied on the decision in Nagarajan v. Tiruchirappalli Co-op. H.C.S. Ltd., reported in 1973 (II) MLJ 188 and submitted that a writ petition challenging the order of supersession is maintainable as there is apparent error in law and the appeal remedy need not be exhausted. 32. It is further submitted that when the statute prescribes a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that particular manner and not in other manner and in the instant case, the prescription made in the Rules has been violated and therefore the proceedings are vitiated. 32. It is further submitted that when the statute prescribes a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that particular manner and not in other manner and in the instant case, the prescription made in the Rules has been violated and therefore the proceedings are vitiated. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3558 as well as the decision of this Court in the case in N.P. Ramanujam v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2014 (1) CWC 60. 33.In support of his contention that the Deputy Registrar has no power to delegate his functions to the Sub Registrar, reference has been made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh, reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 . 34. Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. D. Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader, who is on record for the respondents, submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of effective and efficacious alternative remedy, under Section 153 of the Act. Further, by referring to the decision of the Honourable Full Bench of this Court in K.Marappan's case, it is submitted that these writ petitions are not maintainable and the petitioner has not shown any valid reasons to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 35. The learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to the counter affidavits filed in the writ petitions, which are identical in all the three cases, submitted that after the resignation of seven members out of eleven Board of members, during January, 2014, there was virtually no transactions or activities whatsoever in the Society and there was stagnation in disbursement of the loan for the preceding three months and therefore the order of supersession of the society is perfectly justified and warranted. 36. It is further submitted that the field officers, who inspected the society, found out the misappropriation and after the same was detected, the petitioner repaid the same and therefore it is a case of temporary misappropriation of Rs.9,00,000/-. 36. It is further submitted that the field officers, who inspected the society, found out the misappropriation and after the same was detected, the petitioner repaid the same and therefore it is a case of temporary misappropriation of Rs.9,00,000/-. Further, a report has been submitted, after conducting enquiry, under Section 81 of the Act and the further action pursuant to the said report is being initiated. It is further submitted that it is false to state that the amount was drawn to disburse loans to the members, but the amount was drawn by the petitioner, by using self-cheques and the transactions were not noted in the account books and the amount were mis-utilized by the petitioner and remitted back to the Society after about four days along with interest of Rs.3,575/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner had retained the amount for his own purpose and to get himself enriched and it is a clear case of breach of trust. 37. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has made certain allegations as against the Pudukkottai District Central Cooperative Bank stating that the Bank delayed the release of funds and the delay is motivated is a false statement and the financing Bank never delayed the release of funds to the Society, if the request was in order. It is further submitted that the reasons stated by the petitioner for the seven Board of members to resign is incorrect and the Board of members had no grievance against the Central Bank and the complaint is only against the petitioner and therefore no motive can be attributed for the issuance of notice on 24.01.2014, under Section 33(15) of the Act. 38. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner, being the President of the Society, could have convened the meeting under Section 33(14) of the Act. Since he failed to convene the special meeting, the Registrar had to convene the meeting by invoking the power under Section 33(15) of the Act. It is further submitted that on account of resignation of seven Board of members, the elected Board of the society has lost it's quorum and therefore it is incumbent on the petitioner to convene the meeting under Section 33(14) of the Act. 39. It is further submitted that on account of resignation of seven Board of members, the elected Board of the society has lost it's quorum and therefore it is incumbent on the petitioner to convene the meeting under Section 33(14) of the Act. 39. It is further submitted that one R. Ramathilagam and C. Ayyavu tendered resignation on 04.01.2014 in writing to the petitioner, the president of the society, marking a copy to the department. Similarly, P. Suresh, N. Sivayogan, P. Padmavathi, K. Geetha and S. Sankaranarayanan have also submitted their resignations on 20.01.2014. However, the petitioner did not take any action on the resignation, dated 04.01.2014 or on the resignation letters, dated 20.01.2014, when he is bound to place the resolution before the next meeting of the Board under Rule 60(1) of the Rules. Therefore, the Deputy Registrar has rightly exercised his power under Section 33 of the Act and called for a special meeting of the Board. 40. It is further submitted that the intention of the petitioner that he has sixty days time to take decision is not acceptable and the situation in the instant case was peculiar and the circumstances warranted immediate action on their resignation letters. Further, it is submitted that in the meeting convened by the Sub Registrar, the seven Board of members stated that the resignation letters submitted by them are true and genuine and requested the Sub Registrar to accept the same and pass a resolution to that effect. 41. Further, by referring the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.269, Co-operation Department, dated 08.06.1988, it is submitted that the Deputy Registrar has been delegated with the power of Registrar to exercise the powers conferred under Section 33 of the Act and in terms of Rule 61(iv) of the Rules, the special meeting can be presided over and conducted by the Registrar or any officer subordinate to him authorized by him in this behalf. Therefore, the Sub Registrar has been authorized by the Deputy Registrar and the exercise of power by the Sub Registrar is perfectly valid. 42. It is further submitted that one of the ingredients for invoking the power of supersession, under Section 88 of the Act is where the society is not functioning properly and in the instant case the petitioner fraudulently retained a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-of the society's funds and a report has been submitted under Section 81 of the Act. 42. It is further submitted that one of the ingredients for invoking the power of supersession, under Section 88 of the Act is where the society is not functioning properly and in the instant case the petitioner fraudulently retained a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-of the society's funds and a report has been submitted under Section 81 of the Act. Coupled with these facts, an extraordinary situation is arisen when seven members of the Board resigned out of 11 members. 43. It is further submitted that the Pudukkottai District Central Cooperative Bank is the financing bank and it is controlled by the Reserve Bank of India and therefore there is substantial control by the Government and the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard is devoid of merits. Further, it is stated in the counter affidavit that Rules 103 and 173 of the Rules do not provide for furnishing a copy of the enquiry officer report and therefore the allegation made by the petitioner is contrary to the Rules. It is further submitted that out of the total funds of the Society Rs.1.5 Crores is the Government money and only Rs.18,00,000/-alone is the money of the shareholders and other contributions and therefore it is incorrect to state that there is no government financial assistance to the society. 44. Further, it is stated that in terms of Section 88(1) of the Act, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit his reply to the notice, however, he failed to submit his reply and rushed to this Court without availing the opportunity and therefore the writ petitions are being devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. 45. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while reiterating certain factual averments, submitted that Rule 61(4) of the Rules deals with the removal of elected members of the Board and has no baring in respect of the action taken under Section 33 of the Act and the case on hand is not a case of removal of elected members of the Board and therefore Rule 61(4) of the Rules cannot be applied to a case in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 33(15) of the Act. 46.The learned counsel further submitted that all the seven Board of members, who are said to have resigned, have filed their individual supporting affidavits stating that they were forced to resign from the directorship, since the Central Cooperative Bank is not disbursing the loans to their members and when the Sub Registrar issued notice convening a special meeting on 05.02.2014, they requested the Sub Registrar to make arrangements for disbursing the loans, however they were informed that he is not the competent person to decide the issue and left with no other option, the resolution was passed. 47. It is further stated in the supporting affidavits that if the third respondent had given any assurance to disburse the loan to the members, the resolution would not have been passed to accept their resignation. The seven directors have stated that they wish to withdraw their resignation and wish to continue the directorship of the society and a report has also been sent to the petitioner to withdraw their resignation. Therefore, the learned counsel has submitted that in the light of these developments, this Court should consider and set aside the impugned proceedings and the democratically elected Board shall discharge it's duties and correspondingly the Pudukkottai District Central Cooperative Bank should be directed to render all assistance for the effective conduct of the affairs of the Society. 48. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and carefully perused the materials available on record. 49. The following questions of fact and law arise for consideration in these writ petitions: 1. Whether the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of appeal remedy under Section 152 of the Act? 2. Whether the Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies is competent to convene the special meeting of the Board under Section 33(15) of the Act and whether the notice of such meeting is in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law? 3. Whether the decision taken in the special meeting convened by the Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies, on 05.02.2014, is valid and legal? 4. Whether the notice, dated 10.02.2014, issued under Section 88(1) of the Act proposing to supersede the elected Board is valid and whether the reasons assigned therein are proper and germane? 5. Whether the second proviso under Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act would stand attracted? 6. 4. Whether the notice, dated 10.02.2014, issued under Section 88(1) of the Act proposing to supersede the elected Board is valid and whether the reasons assigned therein are proper and germane? 5. Whether the second proviso under Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act would stand attracted? 6. Whether there has been compliance of principles of natural justice in the decision making process? and 7. Whether the impugned proceedings, dated 24.02.2014, superseding the elected Board, is valid in law? Question No.1: 50. Section 152 of the Act provides for appellate remedy against various orders passed under the provisions of the Act. In terms of Clause (v) of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 152 of the Act, any person aggrieved by any order passed under Section 88(1) of the Act may prefer appeal, if such decision is that of a Registrar for the State to the Government or any other person to the Registrar. It is a settled legal position that right of appeal is a substantive right and not a procedural one and the appellate authority created by the statute can only exercise the powers given under the said statute. 51. The petitioner in these writ petitions has challenged the action taken by the respondents in superseding the elected Board. The challenge to the proceedings is from the date of initiation i.e., from the date when the notice was issued invoking Section 33(15) of the Act and culminating in the order of supersession. The challenge to these notices are largely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, non-application of mind and serious violation of principles of natural justice. It is equally a settled legal principle that existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition. The petitioner seeks to question the impugned orders contending that they suffer from lack of jurisdiction. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely because the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy under the Act, it would operate as a bar for the petitioner to approach this Court. 52. The Honourable Supreme Court has carved out certain exceptions to the doctrine of exhausting the statutory remedies. If the proceedings are ultra vires, the aggrieved party is entitled to approach the Court for quashing such proceedings. 52. The Honourable Supreme Court has carved out certain exceptions to the doctrine of exhausting the statutory remedies. If the proceedings are ultra vires, the aggrieved party is entitled to approach the Court for quashing such proceedings. Further, when there is violation of principles of natural justice, when there is abuse of process of law and where there is a challenge to the very jurisdiction of the authority to pass such an order, this Court in appropriate cases can entertain a writ petition and on the grounds canvassed and the arguments advanced on either side. Therefore, this Court is of the view that these writ petitions fall within such exceptions and the petitioner need not be relegated to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 152 of the Act. Accordingly, Question No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner. 53. Section 33 of the Act deals with constitution and meetings of the Board. Sub-section (14) of Question No.2: Section 33 states that the managing director or the chief executive officer in consultation with the president or in his absence of vice-president of the Board, may at any time, call a special meeting of the Board and shall call such a meeting within fifteen days of a requisition in that behalf from (i) not less than one third of the members of the Board; or (ii) the Board of the financing bank to which such registered society is indebted; or (iii) any other registered society of such class as may be prescribed for the purpose of; or (iv) the Registrar, for the purpose of calling for such special meeting and notice of three clear days shall be given to the members of the Board. 54. In terms of Clause (b) of Section 33(14) the requisition referred to in clause (a) shall be in writing and shall specify the subjects that shall be placed for consideration at such requisitioned meeting. Therefore, the pre-requisite for calling for a special meeting is a requisition and meeting to be called for within fifteen days of a requisition. In the instant case, there has been no requisition from 1/3rd members of the Board. It is stated that seven elected members of the Board submitted their resignation to the president and copies of the same were marked to the respondents. In the instant case, there has been no requisition from 1/3rd members of the Board. It is stated that seven elected members of the Board submitted their resignation to the president and copies of the same were marked to the respondents. In the letters of resignation, copies of which have been filed by the respondents in their typed set, there is no request made by any of the seven members to call for a special meeting for any stated purpose. Therefore, the present case would not fall within the Clause (i) of Section 33(14)(a) of the Act. Likewise, Clauses (ii) and (iii) are also not attracted on the facts of the case. Clause (iv) empowers the Registrar to call for a special meeting of the Board for which notice of three clear days is required to be given to the members. 55. Sub-Section (15) to Section 33 deals with circumstances when the president of the society fails to call a meeting in accordance with a requisition under Clause (a) of Sub-Section (14) and the Registrar shall if he is satisfied that there are sufficient and valid reasons to convene the Board meeting, call the meeting himself. Therefore, the Registrar is entitled to call for a meeting of the Board bye passing an order under Section 33(14)(a)(iv) and if the president does not call for any meeting within fifteen days of such requisition, then the Registrar can invoke the power under Sub-Section (15) of Section 33. The statute states that even in such circumstances, the satisfaction of the Registrar is required and he has to be satisfied that there are sufficient and valid reasons to convene the Board meeting and call the meeting himself. This satisfaction is not an empty formality to be exercised with due caution since it would amount to interfering with the internal administration of the society managed by a democratically elected Board of management. 56. In the notice, dated 31.01.2014, which is also being questioned in W.P.(MD) No.2875 of 2014, the Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies has stated that seven members of the Board have submitted their resignation and this subject is required to be considered and therefore a meeting under Section 33(15) of the Act is scheduled to be convened on 05.02.2014, at 04.00 p.m., and all the Board members were directed to participate in the meeting. The notice convening the meeting does not record any reference to a requisition made by the Registrar to the president to convene a meeting nor does it referred to any requisition from 1/3rd members of the Board and the respondents have exercised the power under Section 33(15) bye-passing the requirement under Sub-section 14 of Section 33 of the Act. 57. Admittedly, the notice, dated 31.01.2014, does not record any reason as to why the said authority is satisfied that there are sufficient and valid reasons to convene the Board meeting, since according to the Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, as stated in the counter affidavit, the president failed to convene the meeting. Even assuming that the president failed to convene the meeting, then the Registrar has to record his satisfaction that there are sufficient and valid reasons to convene the Board meeting. This satisfaction is not apparent in the notice, dated 31.01.2014. That apart, no record has been placed before this Court to show that satisfaction was recorded and thereafter the meeting was convened by issuing the notice, dated 31.01.2014. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings starting from the issuance of the notice, dated 31.01.2014, is contrary to the procedure established by the law. 58. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies has no jurisdiction to convene the meeting. The learned Additional Advocate General has relied on G.O.Ms.No.269, dated 08.06.1988 and submitted that the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies has been delegated the power of Registrar and one of such power is the power under Section 88 as well as the power under Section 33 of the Act. Therefore, the Deputy Registrar is the delegatee of the Registrar under the Act. The further submission is that for the purpose of calling for special meeting, the procedure is regulated by Rules namely Rule 61(4) of the Rules. 59. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as per the notice issued under Section 33(15) of the Act, the Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies convened the meeting to take decision regarding resignation of seven members of the Board of directors. Therefore, Rule 60 would be applicable and Rule 61 of the Rules would not be applicable as it deals with removal of the elected member of the Board. 60. Therefore, Rule 60 would be applicable and Rule 61 of the Rules would not be applicable as it deals with removal of the elected member of the Board. 60. On a careful scrutiny of the Rules 60 and 61, it is to be pointed out that sub-section (1) of Section 61 of the Rules deals with removal of the elected member by a resolution expressing no confidence passed in a special meeting of the members of the society or of the constituency, which elected him. Sub-rule (4) deals with the special meeting to be presided over and conducted by the Registrar or any officer subordinate to him, authorized by him in this behalf. The special meeting referred to under Sub-Rule (4) is the special meeting contemplated under Sub-Rule (1). 61. Admittedly, the case on hand is not a case, where no confidence was expressed on a member or members. Therefore, Rule 61 would have no application to the instant case. Similarly, the Rule, which shall be applicable to the resignation from membership, shall be Rule 60 and when a member resigns, such a resignation shall be placed before the next meeting of the Board by the president and it is the Board, which shall decide whether to accept the resignation communicated to the president and such decision to be communicated to the member, who submitted the resignation, within seven days of the decision of the Board, but not later than sixty days, from the date of resignation letter in the office of the society. If the decision is not communicated within the period of sixty days, it is deemed that the Board has accepted the resignation on the sixtieth day from the date of resignation letter received in the office of the society. Therefore, the procedure to be followed while considering the resignation of the member is entirely differed from the procedure to be followed while removing the elected member on the ground of no confidence. 62. Rule 60 of the Rules does not provide for any delegation nor does it speak of a special meeting. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in relying upon Rule 61(4) to state that the Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies has jurisdiction to convene a special meeting under Section 33(15) of the Act. 62. Rule 60 of the Rules does not provide for any delegation nor does it speak of a special meeting. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in relying upon Rule 61(4) to state that the Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies has jurisdiction to convene a special meeting under Section 33(15) of the Act. Section 33 (15) of the Act empowers a Registrar to convene a special meeting, if he is satisfied that there are sufficient and valid reasons. In the light of the delegation vide G.O.Ms.No.269, dated 08.06.1988, the Deputy Registrar is entitled to initiate proceedings, under Section 33(15) of the Act. In that view of the matter, it is held that the Sub-Registrar of Cooperative Societies in the facts of the present case lacks jurisdiction to issue a notice convening a meeting exercising power under Section 33(15) of the Act and as observed earlier, the notice issued is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and therefore the Question No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner. Question No.3: 63. In the light of the decision taken in Question No.2, it would be unnecessary to examine as to whether the decision taken by the Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies in the meeting convened on 05.02.2014 is proper and valid. Nevertheless in the impugned order of supersession, dated 24.02.2014, it has referred to the meeting, which was convened by the Sub Registrar, four members including the petitioner did not participate, apart from that seven members participated, who are the persons, who have said to have been given the letter of resignation. As noticed above, none of the seven members made a requisition for calling for a special meeting, under Section 33(14) of the Act. The letters of resignation also do not make any request to call for any special meeting. 64. The Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, has admitted that the letters of resignation were sent to the president with copies marked to the respondent. Therefore, the addressee of the letters of resignation is the president. There was a validly elected Board of management on the relevant date and it is such Board, which has to be take decision in the matter and the Sub Registrar had no jurisdiction to straightaway invoke the power under Section 33(15) of the Act, without even calling for a report from the society or president. There was a validly elected Board of management on the relevant date and it is such Board, which has to be take decision in the matter and the Sub Registrar had no jurisdiction to straightaway invoke the power under Section 33(15) of the Act, without even calling for a report from the society or president. Thus, it appears that the entire matter was done in great haste. The notice convening the meeting on 31.01.2014 is said to have been served on all the members of the Board. On 03.02.2014, the petitioner in the capacity of the president of the society has written a detailed communication to the Sub Registrar stating that the notice convening the meeting invoking Section 33(15) of the Act is without jurisdiction and illegal. On the same date, another notice has been sent by the president convening a meeting of the Board on 10.02.2014. The receipt of the petitioner's objection, dated 03.02.2014, has not been denied in the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, the decision taken in the special meeting convened on 05.02.2014 is invalid and illegal. Accordingly, Question No.3 is answered in favour of the petitioner. Question No.4: 65. The first respondent, by notice dated 10.02.2014, called upon the petitioner and other Board members to show cause within a period of seven days as to why the elected Board of the society should not be superseded. Copy of the notice has been sent to the petitioner president, vice-president and 11 Board members. It is to be pointed out that on the date of issuance of notice i.e., 10.02.2014, the seven members of the Board were no longer holding the office according to the respondent as they have resigned and their resignation was accepted on 05.02.2014. Therefore, to describe such of those Board members, who have resigned, as members of the elected Board reveals total non-application of mind. 66. Primarily, on two grounds the society was sought to be superseded, firstly on the ground that an enquiry under Section 81 of the Act was conducted and a report was submitted in which there is a prima facie finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner alleging temporary misappropriation of funds of the society. The petitioner took a stand that the report of Section 81 enquiry was not communicated to the society. The petitioner took a stand that the report of Section 81 enquiry was not communicated to the society. In the counter affidavit, the Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has taken a stand that there is no necessity to furnish the said report in terms of Rules 103 and 173 of the Rules. Both the rules referred in the counter affidavit may not be of any relevance. However, Rule 104 of the Rules may be the relevant Rule and there may be a typographical error in the counter affidavit and even the said Rule does not prohibit the furnishing of copy of such report. However, if the principles of natural justice are applied any adverse materials, affecting the interest of a person has to be furnished, unless it is a privileged document. However, at this stage of the matter, these aspects need not be gone into for the simple reason that though a report has been submitted under Section 81 of the Act, further proceedings are yet to be initiated even as per the counter affidavit. Therefore, to penalize the elected Board members, for the reasons assigned in the report under Section 81 of the Act as one of the ground for supersession amounts to prejudging the issue. Therefore, reliance on the report under Section 81 of the Act in the notice issued under Section 88 of the Act is misconceived. In any event, this observation would have no bearing on the further proceedings contemplated by the respondents pursuant to such report under Section 81 while shall be dealt with independently. 67. In the preceding paragraphs, it has been held that the notice convening the special meeting is illegal, the decision taken in the special meeting is illegal and such illegality cannot give rise to cause of action for issuing a notice under Section 88 of the Act. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned notice, dated 10.02.2014, is unsustainable in law and vitiated. Accordingly, Question No.4 is answered in favour of the petitioner. Question No.5: 68. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Section 88 (1) of the Act could not have been invoked as against the society, which is a thrift society consisting of members, who are all employee in the education department namely teachers and others. Accordingly, Question No.4 is answered in favour of the petitioner. Question No.5: 68. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Section 88 (1) of the Act could not have been invoked as against the society, which is a thrift society consisting of members, who are all employee in the education department namely teachers and others. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the society does not have any government shareholding or any guarantee by the government and therefore it cannot be wound up. By referring to the decision of the Honourable Full Bench in the case of K. Marappan (cited supra), it is submitted that giving loans is not a financial assistance. 69. The learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the role played by the Pudukkottai District Central Cooperative Bank, with regard to the funds deployed for the society and more than Rs.1.30 Crores of Government money has been given to the society and these are State Government funds operated by the Central Co-operative Bank and therefore there is substantial financial assistance being rendered by the Government. In the light of the above factual position, the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act does not stand attracted and the same will not operate as a bar as against the petitioner's thrift society. Accordingly, Question No.5 is answered against the petitioner. Question Nos.6 & 7: 70. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned proceedings superseding the society on various grounds, primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.02.2014 as to why the Board of society should not be superseded. The petitioner sent a reply on 13.02.2014 requesting three weeks time to submit reply as there is a bereavement in his family and he has to perform the last rites. The vice-president submitted a reply among other things stating that the resignation was obtained by force. One of the elected Board members Mr. Mathialagan stated that the report under Section 81 of the Act was not communicated to him or to the society. He has also stated that the resignation letters was obtained from the seven Board members, by exercising coercion. It appears that the other Board members had not either received the notice or submitted their reply. 71. Mathialagan stated that the report under Section 81 of the Act was not communicated to him or to the society. He has also stated that the resignation letters was obtained from the seven Board members, by exercising coercion. It appears that the other Board members had not either received the notice or submitted their reply. 71. The Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies could have adopted one of the two alternatives namely to reject the request seeking adjournment for three weeks and inform the petitioner by notice stating that if he fails to submit reply within the period to be stipulated, the matter will be decided ex parte. The other being to proceed ex parte and take a decision on merits. However, the Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has recorded in the impugned order, dated 24.02.2014, that the petitioner cannot ride two horses by meaning that he has approached this Court and filed two writ petitions. This according to the authority is proceeding parallely under two modes. 72. It is to be noted that the petitioner cannot penalized for approaching this Court seeking appropriate remedy. The language used by the Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Dr. K.V.S. Kumar is to be deprecated. It is not known under what circumstances, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not interested in submitting a reply. It is seen that the vice-president and a Board member have given their reply and the Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies while passing the impugned order, dated 24.02.2014, has not adverted to any of the contentions raised and the impugned order is verbatim repetition of the contents of the show cause notice, though not identically worded. There has been no objective consideration of the representation given by the vice-president, and the other Board members nor any analysis as to how the report of the enquiry under Section 81 of the Act would be germane to the issue when the same is yet to be communicated to the society and such other matters. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice, vitiated on account of non-application of mind, suffers from total lack of jurisdiction, commencing from the issuance of the notices and culminating in the impugned order, the entire proceedings are vitiated and appears to have been done in great haste. 73. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice, vitiated on account of non-application of mind, suffers from total lack of jurisdiction, commencing from the issuance of the notices and culminating in the impugned order, the entire proceedings are vitiated and appears to have been done in great haste. 73. Sub-section 6 of Section 88 of the Act states that before passing an order under sub-section (1)(a)(i) in respect of any registered society, the Registrar shall consult, in the manner prescribed, the Board of the financing bank to which the society is indebted. 74. Admittedly, the financing bank is the Pudukkottai District Central Cooperative Bank. There is nothing on record to show that there was any consultation with the Central Cooperative Bank. This Court in the case of K.Thangavelu (cited supra), while considering Section 72 of the Act, which is a para materia of Section 88 of the Act, held that if there is no consultation before issuing show cause notice and if the Joint Registrar ultimately finds that the irregularities have not been established, then the consultation with the financing bank would become a mere formality and sheer waste of time. However, such consultation is necessary before an order of supersession is passed under Section 72 of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of any record to show that there has been consultation with the Central Cooperative Bank, this also is one more ground to set aside the impugned order of supersession. 75. In the case of Arignar Anna Weavers Co-op, Society Ltd. (cited supra), one of the issues, which fallen for consideration, is the power of supersession, under Section 88 of the Act. While considering the scope of the provisions of the Act, this Court pointed out that the very legislation was enacted for an orderly development of the cooperative movement in accordance with the cooperative principles such as open membership, democratic management, etc. If this is the purpose of the enactment, and the Board has been duly elected to manage the Society, the democratic management can be removed from the Office only after fully satisfying the provisions of the Statute. If this is the purpose of the enactment, and the Board has been duly elected to manage the Society, the democratic management can be removed from the Office only after fully satisfying the provisions of the Statute. It is to prevent the mismanagement, such actions are taken, and if the management could be prevented by some other action preserving the democratic principles, retaining the management with the elected body, the same will have to be adopted before proceeding to supersede the Board. Accordingly, Question Nos.6 & 7 are decided in favour of the petitioner. 76. In the result, all the three writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders, dated 10.02.2014 and 24.02.2014, passed by the first respondent, are set aside and the meeting convened on 05.02.2014 by the Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Pudukkottai, at the instance of the second respondent is declared as illegal and non-est in law. Further, the elected Board shall stand restored and the petitioner shall convene the first Board meeting within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter they shall proceed in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.