Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2775 (MAD)

K. Sudalai v. Deputy Registrar

2014-08-21

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed, challenging the order of the learned Judge, dated 14.07.2014, made in W.P.(MD)No.8476 of 2010. 2. The learned Judge has passed an order, dated 14.07.2014, dismissing the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD) No.8476 of 2010, stating that the petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedy available to him, under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, challenging the impugned auction notice, issued by the first respondent, dated 18.05.2010. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the proceedings contemplated under Rule 126 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, had not been followed by the first respondent, while issuing the impugned auction notice, dated 18.09.2010. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, in W.P.(MD) No.8476 of 2010, ought to have been allowed, setting aside the impugned auction notice, issued by the first respondent, dated 18.05.2010. 4. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Ananth C. Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. N. Manohar, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and we have also perused the materials available on record. 5. It is noted that the learned Judge has passed the order, dated 14.07.2014, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, stating that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. As such, it is open to the appellant to make a claim before the Sale Officer, as per Rule 135(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. As per the impugned notice, issued by the first respondent dated 18.05.2010, the sale of the property ought to have taken place, on 28.05.2010. In such circumstances, we do not find any cause or reason to interfere with order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 14.07.2014, made in W.P.(MD) No.8476 of 2010. 6. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.