ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to entrust the operation of the accounts and cheque signing power to the fourth respondent Secretary in terms of Rule 146 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 and By-law 38 of the VI Spl72, Arappakkam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Arappakkam, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is one of the elected Board of Directors of Arappakkam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Arappakkam, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District, and the fifth respondent is the President of the said Society. It is further stated that the Secretary, who is otherwise called as Chief Executive Officer of the Society under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (in short “Act”), will function as Chief Paid Officer of the said Society till he attains the age of superannuation. Therefore, he further stated that the fourth respondent being the Secretary of the said Society is answerable for the acts and omissions taking place either during the tenure of the Board of Directors or during the administration by the Special Officer. 3. In his further submissions, learned counsel, by relying upon Rule 146(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 (in short “Rules”), submitted that the Secretary, who is none other than the Chief Executive officer, has to sign the cheques and also to operate the accounts of the Society and based on the said rule, the second respondent has also issued a circular dated 22.07.2013 to all the Societies by categorically stating that the operation of the accounts and signing of cheques should be only by the Secretary who is the Chief Executive Officer, therefore, as per the said Act, only the fourth respondent is empowered to do such acts, he pleaded. 4. That apart, learned counsel submitted that the fourth respondent society has their own by-laws framed in tune with the Act and Rules and the same were registered before the third respondent on 22.12.2010. 4. That apart, learned counsel submitted that the fourth respondent society has their own by-laws framed in tune with the Act and Rules and the same were registered before the third respondent on 22.12.2010. As per the bylaw 36 of the Society, the functions of the President is to only supervise the activities of the Society and to preform his duties in terms of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws and that she has no right to interfere with the powers and functions of the paid officers and in the absence of the Chief Executive Officer of the Society, she has right to sue on behalf of the Society. By narrating so on the said by-law, learned counsel submitted that in the case on hand, there is a paid Office called Secretary/fourth respondent herein discharging the duties conferred on him under the Act, Rules and By-laws of the Society, therefore, it is very clear that the Secretary of a Co-operative society alone has power to operate the accounts and sign the cheques of the society. However, in the case on hand, the fifth respondent assumed the role of the Chief Executive Officer upon her selection to the post of President and she is operating the accounts and also issuing the cheques to her whims and fancies, contrary to the provision of the Act and Rules. 5. By narrating all the above said facts, learned counsel stated, the petitioner made a representation dated 29.10.2014 to the respondents intimating the action of the fifth respondent signing the cheques and the withdrawals of the amounts, for, if there is any mismanagement of the funds by the fifth respondent – President, then the fourth respondent will have to face surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act. Therefore, he pleaded, with a view to protect the funds of the Society, the fifth respondent should not be allowed to operate the accounts and permitted to sign the cheques and thus, with these submissions, he prayed for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 as cited supra. 6. Though this Court has given several opportunities to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to file their counter affidavit, the respondents failed to avail such opportunity. 6. Though this Court has given several opportunities to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to file their counter affidavit, the respondents failed to avail such opportunity. However, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that as per Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the President of the Society is bound to keep and maintain such accounts and books relating to that society in such manner as may be prescribed, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the fifth respondent being the President of the Society has no power to operate or maintain the books and accounts of that Society. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, Rule 146 (4)(a) of the Rules, need extraction, which is to the following effect: “The Managing Director or the Chief Executive Officer shall have power to operate the accounts of the society to endorse and transfer promissory notes, Government and other securities held by the Society and to sign, endorse and negotiate cheques and other negotiable instruments, bonds (except bonds for moneys borrowed), receipt and all accounts and other documents connected with the business of the said Society for and on behalf of the said society.” A mere reading of the above said Rule clearly depicts that the Secretary, being the Chief Executive Officer of the Society, has power to sign the cheques and also to operate the accounts of the Society. In the case on hand, it is no doubt true that the fourth respondent is functioning as the Secretary of the Society, therefore, only he is competent person to do such acts as contemplated in the above said Rule. 9. Further, it is seen from the typed set of papers filed in support of the writ petition that the second respondent / the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vellore, issued a circular dated 22.07.2013 to all the Societies by categorically stating that the operation of the accounts and signing of cheques should be done only by the Secretary, therefore, in the case on hand, the fifth respondent being a President, ought not to have interfered with the functioning of the Society, when the fourth respondent Secretary holding such power and working in such capacity of the Society. 10. 10. In this context, it is relevant to extract Bye-law 36 of the Society, which is extracted below: As per the above said By-law of the Society framed in tune with the Act and Rules, the functions of the President include supervision of the activities of the Society and he has the right to sue on behalf of the Society in the absence of Chief Executive Officer of the Society. Whileso, in the case on hand, there is a paid Secretary / fourth respondent herein discharging the duties conferred on him under the Act, Rules and Bye-laws of the Society. Further, from a conjoint reading of Rule 146(4)(a) of the Rules and By-law 36 of the Society, it is clear that the Secretary alone has the power to operate the accounts and sign the cheques of the Society, therefore, I find, with a view to protect the funds of the Society, the fifth respondent should not be permitted to sign the cheques, for, if the fifth respondent is permitted to operate the financial matters of the Society to her whims and fancies, after the expiry of her tenure, if she leaves the Office of the President of the Society, the fourth respondent-Secretary, being the paid Chief Executive Officer and one of the elected Board of Directors of the Society and who would hold such position till his superannuation, will be unnecessarily held responsible for the irregularities, if any. 11. Thus, for the reasons cited above, this Court has no impediment to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to entrust the operation of the accounts and cheque signing power to the fourth respondent Secretary in terms of Rule 146 of the Rules and By-law 38 of the VI Spl72, Arappakkam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Arappakkam, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District. With this direction, the writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.