Judgment : The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the second respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a President of the Chennai Port Trust Employees' Co-operative Bank Limited. According to the petitioner, when he assumed the office, the said Co-operative Bank was reeling under severe debt owing approximately a sum of Rs.20 crores to the Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Limited and he streamlined the entire administration and also increased the investment/deposit of the said Bank. When that being the position, the present impugned notice has been issued stating that a meeting is called for, for the removal of the petitioner from the post of President of the said Co-operative Bank. Hence, he has come forward with this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned notice itself is a predetermined one. According to the petitioner, the meeting called for is nothing but an action to send the petitioner out of the post of President. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner challenges the very impugned notice on the main ground that when there is complaint pending without conducting any investigation, the present notice has been illegally issued to remove him from the post. Accordingly, he would pray for quashing the same. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent-Co-operative Society would submit that as per the provision contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 only, the impugned notice has been issued. He would further state that for removing an elected office-bearer, a meeting has to be conducted and a resolution has to be passed with all the members. According to him, in this case, a no confidence motion has been initiated by the members as against the petitioner and hence, the impugned notice has been issued calling for a meeting and it is in accordance with the rules. He would further submit that it is always open to the petitioner to participate in the meeting, but even before the meeting is conducted and any resolution is passed, the petitioner has come before this Court with this writ petition. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. He would further submit that it is always open to the petitioner to participate in the meeting, but even before the meeting is conducted and any resolution is passed, the petitioner has come before this Court with this writ petition. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 13, who are the Directors of the Chennai Port Trust Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd., would submit that the notice issued is in accordance with Rule 62(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 and it is mandatory for the first respondent to arrange such a meeting. She would further submit that the other elected members of the Society can express their grievance, if any, against the petitioner only if such a meeting is convened. Accordingly, she would pray for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard all parties concerned. By consent the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 6. The only point to be decided in this writ petition is whether the impugned notice issued to the petitioner is valid in law. 7. The petitioner, apprehending that the Society has come to a conclusion to remove him from the post of President has come forward with this writ petition. I have perused the impugned notice and it reads as follows: “Tamil” From a mere reading of the said notice, one can easily understood that it is only a subject, which is indicated and it says that a meeting is convened, for deciding as to the removal of the petitioner from the post of President, in view of the no confidence motion expressed by so many persons and that by itself would not mean that the members have pre-determined to remove the petitioner from the said post. 8. At this juncture, I would like to extract the relevant provision as under: ''Rule 62 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 reads as follows: Removal of an elected office-bearer - (1) An elected office-bearer may be removed by a resolution expressing no confidence on him passed in a special meeting of the board. 8. At this juncture, I would like to extract the relevant provision as under: ''Rule 62 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 reads as follows: Removal of an elected office-bearer - (1) An elected office-bearer may be removed by a resolution expressing no confidence on 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-third of 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 requisition is received, the Registrar shall communicate a copy of the requisition to the office-bearer concerned, calling upon him to make his representation, 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 clear 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 a 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 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) 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. (8) If the no confidence motion is not carried by such a majority referred to in sub-rule (6), or if the meeting cannot be held for want of the quorum referred to in sub-rule(5), no requisition for brining any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same office-bearer shall be received until after the expiry of six months of the date of the meeting.'' 9. As per the aforesaid rule, it is the duty of the Registrar to convene a meeting to pass any resolution and the notice issued is only in consonance with Rule 62(3) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. In view of the same, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned notice at this stage. However, the petitioner is entitled to participate in the meeting to be conducted by the first respondent and put forward his case and it is in accordance with Rule 62(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. Therefore, the right of the petitioner is also safe-guarded. Inasmuch as the meeting period is already over as per the impugned notice, the authority is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner informing the date and also give sufficient time to put forward his case. 10. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.