JUDGMENT (Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.413 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent pertaining to its proceeding in Na.Ka.15321/2019 Sa.Pa dated 22.11.2019 and to quash the same as illegal. W.P.(MD) No. 1462 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the third respondent pertaining to its proceeding bearing No. Nil dated 20.01.2020 and to quash the same as illegal.) Common Order 1. The writ petitioner, Braind Louis S/o. Justin residing at Kalnativilai, Pulippunam, Kattathurai Post, Kanyakumari District had filed two writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.413 & 1462 of 2020. Both the writ petitions are interconnected with each other. 2. Mr.A. Thiyagarajan, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the first respondent in W.P.(MD) No. 413 of 2020. 3. Mr. A. Thiyagarajan, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the first respondent in W.P.(MD) No. 1462 of 2020. 4. W.P.(MD) No.413 of 2020 has been filed seeking to call for the records of the first respondent, namely; the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Palace Road, Thuckly, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.15321/2019 Sa.Pa, dated 22.11.2019 and to quash the same. By the said proceedings, the first respondent had rejected the representation given by the petitioner herein, who had objected for considering a request for “No Confidence Motion'' moved by at the time by eight members of the Y-178, Eraviputhooradai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, questioning the continuing in position as President by the petitioner herein. 5. The Brief facts of the case are as follows: At Kattathurai in Kanyakumari District, a Co-operative Society is functioning in the name of Y-178, Eraviputhooradai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society limited. There are 11 Directors for the said society. During the elections conducted for the Office bearers the petitioner herein had been elected as President. One Robert Clive was elected as Vice President. It must be mentioned that Robert Clive has also filed WMP(MD) No. 2093 of 2020 to implead himself as party/respondent in connected W.P.(MD) No. 1462 of 2020. However, it transpires that the Robert Clive had taken loan in another Co-operative society for a sum of Rs.2,86,862/-. He had not repaid the said loan. It must be mentioned that Robert Clive has also filed WMP(MD) No. 2093 of 2020 to implead himself as party/respondent in connected W.P.(MD) No. 1462 of 2020. However, it transpires that the Robert Clive had taken loan in another Co-operative society for a sum of Rs.2,86,862/-. He had not repaid the said loan. He had not disclosed that fact when he had contested for post of Vice President. Therefore, it was claimed that he is not eligible to continue either as Vice President or as Director of Eraviputhooradai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited. In view of these facts, it is claimed by the petitioner herein that he was removed by him on 25.03.2019. This effectively means, after 25.03.2019, Robert Clive is a person non-greta insofar as the society is concerned. Insofar as the records available has been processed he has not challenged the said removal. However, on 29.05.2019 along with seven others he had filed a application/requisition/permission to move a 'No Confidence Motion' as against the petitioner herein, questioning his continuing as a President by the petitioner. This came up for consideration in the earlier writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 13451 of 2019. The grounds raised therein was that one of the member who had signed in the said requisition, had withdrawn her signature. It was stated that she has signed on the basis of misrepresentation. The other ground was that since Robert Clive had been removed as was ineligible to request a no confidence motion being moved. Effectively, this means that 2 of the 11 Directors go out. Therefore, an issue was raised whether there was requisite quorum to call for a 'No Confidence Motion' . The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order, dated 13.09.2019, had examined that issue and in the course of the order had stated that, since the requisition failed short of majority, the petitioner Braind Louis can give an requisition to the Registrar who should consider the same and take a decision whether to convene a meeting or not. The first respondent/Deputy Registrar of Societies who took a decision and issued the impugned order, dated 22.11.2019 in Na.Ka.15321/2019 Sa.Pa. However, prior to taking such a decision, the said official also had the benefit of the explanation given by the petitioner herein, dated 13.11.2019. 6. The first respondent/Deputy Registrar of Societies who took a decision and issued the impugned order, dated 22.11.2019 in Na.Ka.15321/2019 Sa.Pa. However, prior to taking such a decision, the said official also had the benefit of the explanation given by the petitioner herein, dated 13.11.2019. 6. In the explanation/objection, the petitioner had very specifically stated that Robert Clive had been removed as a member. It was also very specifically stated that one of the signatories B. Chandrakala had given a letter on 04.06.2019 that she was mislead to affix her signature by C. Dalenky, who is another member. Naturally, these questions of facts will have to be decided in manner known to law. On the other hand, in the order impugned in WP(MD) No.413 of 2020, the objections have been simply brushed away by stating that, “TAMIL”. 7. A decision had been taken, without giving any reason as to why the explanation/objection given by the petitioner had been rejected and without giving any further reason as to what actually was perused in the application/requisition given by the petitioner. The principles of natural justice requires that when any administrative order is passed, a primary duty is cast on the authority to seek explanations for issuing notice to the persons who would be directly affected by any order and then the authority must examine the issues raised. In this case, the first respondent, namely, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies should have issued notice to the petitioner Braind Louis and the named individuals, Robert Clive, P. Chandrakala and C.Dalenky examined them and thereafter, should have passed an order based with reasons. That procedure had not been adopted. The officer must realise that any order, even if it is an administrative order if it directly affects the rights of a individuals, then the said individuals should be examined and given an opportunity of being heard. In the present case, the impugned order fails scrutiny of the Court. Consequently, I have no hesitation to setting aside the order, dated 22.11.2019 passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka. 15321/2019 Sa.Pa. 8. However, this is not an end of the story. In the present case, the impugned order fails scrutiny of the Court. Consequently, I have no hesitation to setting aside the order, dated 22.11.2019 passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka. 15321/2019 Sa.Pa. 8. However, this is not an end of the story. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent/the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thuckaly, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District, who has to follow the procedure known to law, namely, issuing notices to all the four individuals named and after getting their explanation in hearing them and thereafter passing an order on the request to call for a meeting to pass a 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner Braind Louis, President of Eraviputhooradai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited. This exercise has to be done by the first respondent after giving notice and a final order has to be passed on or before, 15.04.2020. 9. In view of the above observations, the order impugned herein is set aside by this Court with the above directions. The consequential order in WP (MD) No. 1462 of 2020 has no legs to stand and consequently, this Court sets aside the order, dated 20.01.2020. 10. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and W.M.P. (MD) No. 2093 of 2020 is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.