JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in his order dated 29.10.2010 in Na.Ka.No.4338/2009 Ma.Va., and quash the same.) The writ petitioner is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short]. The order passed by the second respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies in proceedings dated 29.10.2010 regulating the period of absence of the fourth respondent-employee, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that on 14.10.2009, respondents 1 and 2 transferred the fourth respondent to the third respondent-Villupuram District Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores. Consequently, the writ petitioner-Society relieved the fourth respondent on 14.10.2009. The fourth respondent had not joined duty in the third respondent- Villupuram District Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores and proceeded on leave. Thereafter, the fourth respondent filed WP No.22318 of 2009 and an order of status-quo was granted by this Court on 13.11.2009. However, the fourth respondent had not joined duty and continued to be absent. This Court passed final orders on 08.04.2010 in WP No.22318 of 2009 and the same reads as under:- “8. In any event, the petitioner had gone on leave immediately on the passing of the order and hence, the question of this Court granting the prayer to regularise the service of the petitioner and to give a direction to the respondents to pass order in this regard, does not arise. In the circumstances, I do not find any justification to give any such direction. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the authority for whatever relief he desires to seek in this regard. If and when such application is made, it is open to the respondents to pass such orders in accordance with law.” 3. Based on the orders passed by this Court, the second respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies erroneously passed an order sanctioning the leave for a period of 205 days of unauthorised absence. The said proceedings dated 29.10.2010 under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. On 16.11.2010, the fourth respondent received the leave salary without any objection. Based on the orders passed by this Court, the second respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies erroneously passed an order sanctioning the leave for a period of 205 days of unauthorised absence. The said proceedings dated 29.10.2010 under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. On 16.11.2010, the fourth respondent received the leave salary without any objection. Thereafter he filed revision petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, challenging the order dated 29.10.2010 of the second respondent to treat the entire period of unauthorised absence as continuity of service. The said revision petition was dismissed. The fourth respondent filed separate revision petition in WP No.313 of 2015, challenging the order passed under Section 153 of the Act. The petitioner-Society filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent on 29.10.2010 mainly on the ground that the second respondent misconstrued the orders of this Court passed in WP No.22318 of 2009 and erroneously regulate the period of unauthorised absence as leave. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and based on the Notification issued under the provisions of the Act, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies is an incompetent authority to deal with the service matters relating to employees of the Cooperative Societies registered under the Act. 6. In this regard, the Government issued G.O.(2D) No.108, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 31.08.2005, delegating the powers of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the Act. As per the delegation of powers notified under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies is not empowered to exercise the powers in respect of service matters of the employees working in the Cooperative Societies. The said power has been delegated to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent-employee objected the said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies is having control over the Cooperative Societies and he is also an Authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. Thus, the present writ petition is to be rejected. 8. Under Section 172 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, the powers of the Government may be delegated. Thus, the present writ petition is to be rejected. 8. Under Section 172 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, the powers of the Government may be delegated. Sub-section (1) to Section 172 of the Act, contemplates that “The Government may, by Notification, authorise any Authority or Officer to exercise any of the powers vested in them by this Act except the powers conferred under sections 170 and 180 and may in like manner withdraw such Authority”. Pursuant to the said powers conferred under Section 172 of the Act, the Government issued Notification delegating the powers to certain Subordinate Authorities. As per the delegation of powers, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies is the Authority to deal with the revision petition under Section 153 of the Cooperative Societies Act and relating to the service matters and the grievances of the employees in respect of the Cooperative Societies. Therefore, such a power delegated to the Joint Registrar, cannot be usurped by the Deputy Registrar. Thus, the Deputy Registrar, in the present case, has issued the impugned order without any jurisdiction and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. The order impugned datd 29.10.2010 was issued by the second respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who has no jurisdiction to deal with the service matters of the employees of the Cooperative Societies or to redress their grievances. Such a power has been delegated to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and thus the second respondent has erroneously exercised the power. That apart, he has misconstrued the orders passed by this Court in WP No.22318 of 2009 dated 08.04.2010. This Court has declined the relief to the petitioner thereafter, however, granted liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the Authority for whatever relief he desired to seek. Therefore, this Court has not issued any positive direction to sanction the leave or to regulate the period of leave. This being the factum established, the writ petition deserves to be considered. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the second respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4338/2009 Ma.Va., dated 29.10.2010 is quashed. Consequently, the present writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.