Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

Madras High Court Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :

3-6-2008

CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.24684 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007 W.P.No.24424 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2007 W.P.No.24746 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2007 W.P.No.24684 of 2007 Dr.P.Rajaji

...

Petitioner

Vs. 1.

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Co-Operation, Food & Consumer Protection (CJ1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

2.

The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Chennai 600 010.

3.

The Madras Advocates Co-Operative Society Ltd, rep.by its Special Officer, High Court, Chennai 600 104.

4.

The Election Officer, The Madras Advocates Co-Operative Society Ltd., High Court, Chennai 600 104. ...

Respondents

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Co W.P.No.24424 of 2007 D. Kulasekaran

...

Petitioner

Vs. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599675/

1

Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

1.

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Co-Operation, Food & Consumer Protection (CJ1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

2.

The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

3.

The Deputy Registrar (Non-Loan), Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies, Kuralagam, Chennai 600 018.

4.

X-146 Madras Advocates Co-Operative Society Ltd,(Canteen), rep.by its Special Officer, Madras High Court Buildings, Chennai 600 104. ...

Respondents

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Co

W.P.No.24746 of 2007 N. Venkatesh

...

Petitioner

Vs. 1.

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Co-Operation, Food & Consumer Protection (CJ1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

2.

The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

3.

The Deputy Registrar, Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies, Krishnagiri.

4.

S.7557, Noganoor Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, rep.by its Special officer, Noganoor, Krishnagiri. ...

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599675/

Respondents 2

Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Co For Petitioner in W.P.No.24684/2007

:

R.Muthukumaraswamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Jenasenan

For Petitioners in W.P.Nos.24424 & 24746/2007 For Respondents :

:

Mr.G.Ethirajulu

Mr.K.Ramaswamy, Addl.Advocate General, assisted by Mr.I.Paranthaman, Addl.Govt.Pleader

COMMON ORDER By consent of both parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The common prayer in W.P.Nos.24424 and 24684 of 2007 is to quash the G.O(2D)No. 3. In W.P.No.24746 of 2007 the prayer is to quash the G.O(2D)No.76, Co-Operation, 4. The subject matter in W.P.Nos.24424 and 24684 of 2007 are relating to the elect 5. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows: (i) The Madras Advocates Co-Operative Society Limited and Noganoor Primary Agricult (ii) The election to the Co-Operative Societies in the State of Tamil Nadu have not (iii) On 19.4.2007, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued orders to conduct elections to (iv) Nominations were called for to elect 11 persons as Board of Directors, for whic (v) Insofar as the Noganoor Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Limited, Krishna (vi) The grievance of the petitioners are that after their respective election to th (vii) The said order of the Government and the consequential cancellation are challeng 6. The respondents filed common counter affidavit by stating as follows: (a) In the year 2001, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.204, Co-Operation, Food and C (b) The Government also inserted a new section viz., Section 89A of the Act empower (c) The Government thereafter decided to conduct elections to all the Primary, Cent (d) Election notifications were issued by the Subordinate Officers of the Registrar (e) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after the election process h (f) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that during the election process, (g) Insofar as the Madras Advocates Co-Operative Society Limited is concerned, the (h) Two members of the said Society viz., P.V.Elango and Muthukumar had sent telegr (i) It is also stated in the counter affidavit that one C.K.Harihararajan, Advocate (j) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned order has been (k) To substantiate the large scale irregularity it is stated in paragraph 17 of th 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.24684 of 2007 8. The learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of the counter affidavit s 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel and 10. The Government ordered to hold elections to various Co-Operative Societies thro 11. Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1988, deals with electi "52(5)(b) The programme for conduct of election shall contain information regardi (i) the date on which,(A) the society shall publish the voters' list in the notice board at the office of the society; (B) the members shall make claims or raise objections to the voters list; and Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599675/

3

Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

(C) the decision of the election officer on the claims made or objections raised to the voters' list shall be published; (ii) where the society fails to prepare and publish the voters' list within the time specified in item (i), the date on which,(A) the election officer shall publish the voters' list in the notice board at the office of the society; (B) the members shall make claims or raise objections to the voters' list; and (C) the decision of the election officer on the claims made or objections raised to the voters' list shall be published; (iii) The date on which, the place at which and the time during which,(A) the nomination papers shall be filed; (B) the nomination papers shall be scrutinised and list of valid nominations shall be published; (C) nominations may be withdrawn; (D) final list of contesting candidates shall be published; and (E) polling, if required, will take place: Provided that there shall be an interval of not less than three clear days between the Provided further that different timings can be fixed for different constituencies on th Sub-rule 6(a) deals with issuing notice of election, which reads as follows: "6(a) The Registrar or the Election Officer shall, send notice of election to the membe (i) the number of vacancies to be filled up by election: (ii) constituency, if any, from which the members are to be elected; (iii)the date, place and time fixed for filing, scrutiny, withdrawal and publication of valid list of nominations; (iv) the date, place and time specified for polling; and (v) the time, date and place in which the counting of votes shall take place." Sub-Rule 7(b) deals with preparation of Voters' List, which reads thus, "7(b) The Voters' list shall contain(i) in the case of an individual member, the name, the surname (if any), the admission number, father's or husband's name and address of the (ii) in the case of an affiliated society, the name of the society, its registration number, address and admission number, together with t Sub-Rule 7(d) deals with publication of Voters' list which is extracted below: "7(d) The society shall also publish a copy of the voters' list on the notice board at Sub-Rule (7)(g) deals with furnishing of copy of the voters' list. Sub-Rule (8) deals with fil 12. The term of the office of the elected Board members is also fixed under section 13. In the cases on hand, admittedly the petitioners are elected only as Board of D 14. The above details furnished by the respondents at page No.103 of the typed set 15. In the newspaper report dated 3.7.2007, published in Dina Thandhi, in 'O.Soudap "CO-OPERATIVE ELECTIONS IMPORTANT NOTICE Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599675/

4

Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

Nominations for co-operative elections are being received since 2nd July throughout Tam Registrar of Co-Operative Societies" Thus, the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies was convinced about the partial attitude adopted 16. In the light of the above allegations and newspaper reports with regard to the "GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT

Co-Operation - Conduct of elections to all the Co-operative Societies under the provisions of t --------------------------------------------Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection (CJ1) Department G.O(2D)No.76

Dated: 11.07.2007 Read :

1. G.O(2D)No.36, Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 19.4.2007 2. From the Registrar of Co-operative Societies letter Rc.No.51684/2007/CE1 dated 11.7.2007. ORDER:

In the Government Order read above, orders have been issued for conducting elections to all the primary, central and apex co-operative societies in the State commencing from 8th June, 2007, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and the rules made thereunder. 2. It has been brought to the notice of the Government that certain unwanted incidents have occurred during these polls. The Government are of the opinion that these incidents have undermined the very purpose of conducting the elections to the co-operative societies in the State. The Government have therefore decided to cancel the elections to the co-operative societies wherever they have been conducted and to hold fresh elections to all the co-operatives after consulting the leaders of all political parties in the Legislature. A new election schedule will be announced by the Government after these consultations. 3. The Registrars of Co-operative Societies are requested to cancel the elections wherever they have been completed or in progress. (By Order of the Governor) S.MACHENDRANATHAN, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT" 17. The next question to be decided is whether the Government is vested with the said power. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the above said power is available to the Government under section 182 of the Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983, which reads as follows:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599675/

5

Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

"182. Power of Government to give directions.- (1) The Government may, i the public interest, by order, direct the Registrar to make an inquiry or to take appropriate proceedings under this Act, in any case specified in the order, and the Registrar shall report to the Government the result of the inquiry made or the proceedings taken by him within a period of six months from the date of such order or such further period as the Government may permit. (2) In any case, in which a direction has been given under sub-section (1), the Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, call for and examine the record of the proceedings of the Registrar and pass such orders in the case as they may think fit: Provided that before passing any order under this sub-section the person likely to be affected by such order shall be given an opportunity of making his representation." From the bare perusal of the above said section it is evident that the Government may in public interest, direct the Registrar to make an enquiry or to take appropriate proceeding under the Act and the Government is empowered to pass such orders notwithstanding anything contained in this Act. 18. The power conferred on the Government under the above provision is a plenary power. The Government is entitled to conduct enquiry in any matter under the above provision and after enquiry if the Government finds that any decision is to be taken on public interest, the Government can take such a decision notwithstanding anything contained in the Act. Thus, even in election matters the Government is empowered to take a decision though elections were ordered to be conducted under section 33(10)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983. As stated in previous paragraphs, the Registrar as well as the Government received various complaints with regard to the conduct of elections. The second respondent was forced to issue warning to the Election Officers for not properly conducting the elections. Lots of malpractices committed during elections in various Societies were widely reported in leading newspapers. Political parties conducted various agitations protesting the illegal manner in which elections were conducted. More than 78% vacancies were filled up without any contest. Hence an abnormal situation has arisen to interfere in the elections by the Government under section 182 on public interest and to uphold the democratic traditions and values. If the Government is not vested with the above planery power, no decision could be taken even in extraordinary situations. Hence I am of the view that section 182 gives ample power to the Government to take the impugned decision, which cannot be held as unauthorised, particularly when no mala fide is alleged against the respondents 1 and 2. 19. The petitioners, even though were elected as Board of Directors on the very same day when the impugned order was passed, admittedly no Board was constituted. Unless the Board of a Co-Operative Society is duly constituted the elected members will not get any status. The term of office is also fixed for a member, who is elected to any board duly constituted. Unless and until the Board is duly constituted, no statutory right is created to the elected members to function for a fixed term. Therefore, the Government is well within its rights to cancel the election already held and ordering not to proceed with the election. Further, an assurance is given in the impugned Government Order that new dates of elections will be announced, after consulting with the political Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599675/

6

Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

parties, in the Assembly. The Government came to the conclusion that free and fair elections were not conducted in most of the Co-operative Societies, where elections were conducted. The said conclusion is arrived at from various sources. When illegalities are pointed out to the Government and the Government having taken a conscious decision to cancel the elections, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the wisdom of the Government in arriving at the above conclusion, particularly when the order is issued by the Government by its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. 20. It is well settled proposition of law that if the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive steps affecting the result so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons, who have been unlawfully benefitted or wrongfully deprived of their selection in such cases, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual notices. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. The said proposition will apply with equal force to elections also. It is an admitted position that co-operative society is formed with laudable object to inculcate the spirit to work in a group freely for rendering benefit to its members through the co-operative contributions. For achieving the said objects free and fair election to the co-operative Societies are bound to be conducted. If the elections conducted are vitiated due to various reasons there may not be full co-operation among the members thereby the whole object of creating Co-operative Societies will be defeated. Keeping all the facts in mind, the first respondent is justified in taking a decision to annul the elections already conducted with a promise to announce new dates. 21. (a) The meaning of 'free and fair election' was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2006) 7 SCC 1 (Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India) in paragraph 448, which reads thus, "448. It shows that the right to vote in "free and fair elections" is always in terms of an electoral system prescribed by national legislation. The right to vote derives its colour from the right to "free and fair elections"; that the right to vote is empty without the right to "free and fair elections". It is the concept of "free and fair elections" in terms of an electoral system which provides content and meaning to the "right to vote". In other words, "right to vote" is not (sic) an ingredient of the free and fair elections. It is essential but not the necessary ingredient." (b) In the decision reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 (Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner) in paragraph 91(2)(a) and (b), V.R.Krishna Iyer, J. held as under, "91.(2)(a): The Constitution contemplates a free and fair election and vests comprehensive responsibility of superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of elections in the Election Commission. This responsibility may cover powers, duties and functions of many sorts, administrative or other, depending on the circumstances. (b) Two limitations at least are laid on its plenary character in the exercise thereof. Firstly, when Parliament or any State Legislature has made valid law relating to or in connection, with elections, the Commission, shall act in conformity with, not in violation of, such provisions but where such law is silent Art.324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of, not divorced from, pushing forward a free and fair election with expedition." Secondly, the Commission shall be responsible to the rule of law, act bona fide and be amenable to the norms of the natural justice in so far as conformance to such canons can reasonably and realistically be required of it as fairplay-in-action in Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599675/

7

Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

a most important area of the constitutional order, viz., elections. Fairness does import an obligation to see that no wrong-doer candidate benefits by his own wrong. .. " (emphasis added) Again in the concurring judgment in the above said decision reported in AIR 1978 SC 851, Goswami,J, with regard to Article 324 of the Constitution, observed in paragraph 113 as under: "113. ... Since the conduct of all elections to the various legislative bodies and to the offices of the President and the Vice-President is vested under Article 324(1) in the Election Commission, the framers of the Constitution took care to leaving scope for exercise of residuary power by the Commission, in its own right, as a creature of the Constitution, in the infinite variety of situations that may emerge from time to time in such a large democracy as ours. Every contingency could not be foreseen or anticipated with precision. That is why there is no hedging under Article 324. The Commission may be required to cope with some situation which may not be provided for in the enacted laws and the rules." (emphasis added) (c) In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 (Suppl) SCC 1 the necessity of free and fair election has been emphasised in the following words, " ... Democracy further contemplates that the elections should be free and fair, so that the voters may be in a position to vote for candidates of their choice. Democracy can indeed function only upon the faith that elections are free and fair and not rigged and manipulated, that they are effective instruments of ascertaining popular will both in reality and form and are not mere rituals calculated to generate illusion of defence to mass nation. Free and fair elections require that the candidates and their agents should not resort to unfair means or malpractices as may impinge upon the process of free and fair elections." (emphasis added) (d) In the decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 1507 (Surinder Kaur v. State of Punjab) the Supreme Court, taking notice of the stand of the appellant in that case that 7th respondent forcefully took the nomination papers from the appellant and torn them off, held that the unlawful prevention of the appellant from contesting election as a Sarpanch was in violation and set aside the election of 7th respondent and directed the authorities to conduct election according to rules within four weeks. (e) In Jayarajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Jayantibhai Patel, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 4670, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, setting aside the election of a person to the post of President of the Municipality, who was elected by draw of lots due to securing equal votes to that of his rival candidate on the ground that two councilors, who were potential voters were prevented from participating in the election. 22. The decision taken by the Government is found just and reasonable in the light of the decision rendered by F.M.Imbrahim Kalifulla,J., concurred by P.K.Misra,J., in the decision reported in 2007 (1) CTC 705 (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State Election Commissioner). In paragraph 156, F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J., summed up the legal position as follows: "(i) Democracy contemplates that Elections should be free and fair, so that voters may be in a position to vote for the candidate of their choice. Free and fair Elections are the very foundation of Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599675/

8

Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

democratic institutions. The Elections should not only be fairly and properly held, but should also seem to be so held to inspire confidence in the minds of the Electors that everything was above board. To ensure free and fair Elections, the Constitution vests comprehensive responsibility in the Election Commission. The Election Commission, as part of fairness in Elections, has an obligation to see that no wrong doer candidate benefits by his own wrong. (ii) The Election Commission as a creature of the Constitution, has been invested with residuary power to be exercised in the infinite variety of situations that may emerge from time to time in the large Democracy of ours, as every contingency cannot be foreseen or anticipated with precision. (iii) To meet such contingencies, the Election Commission has been invested with plenary powers. During the process of Elections, in order to maintain purity in the process, the Election Commission should ensure and see that the Returned Candidate is deprived of the success secured by him, which success he secured by resorting to means and methods falling foul of the law of Elections. Each case has to be considered on its own facts, depending upon the authority that exercises the power and the indelible effects which generate in the operation of law or affects the individual or society. An administrative action can be struck down, if the Court is satisfied that there is abuse or misuse of power or that such action of the authority was so absurd that no reasonable person could have arrived at on the given material." In paragraph 203, P.K.Misra, J., held as follows: "203. The expression election must obviously mean a free and fair election. If the Election Commission on the basis of relevant materials comes to a conclusion that a fair election has not been held either in respect of one ward or even all the wards, it has the jurisdiction to direct re-polling in all the wards. As a matter of fact, Mukhopadhaya, J has also recognised such jurisdiction of the Election Commission." Further in paragraphs 225 and 226 it is held as follows: "225. A detailed analysis of the statutory provisions contained in the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 relating to election of Councillors is available in the pronouncement of Mukhopadhaya, J. Similarly an in-depth analysis of relevant provisions connected with polling arrangement is also available and it is not necessary to recount all those aspects. However, it can be only stated that those statutory provisions relate to various circumstances under which re-polling can be ordered either by the State Election Commission or the State Election Officer. However, with utmost respect, I am unable to accept the conclusion that apart from the contemplated provisions, the Election Commission has no power to direct re-polling for a particular polling booth or even in respect of entire wards. In the words of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill's case, there may be circumstances which are not covered under the statute which require the interference of the Election Commission to ensure a free and fair poll. It is no doubt true that the Election Commission is not expected to act arbitrarily. However, it would not be correct to state that unless a report is made by a Polling Officer, a Presiding Officer, a Returning Officer or a District Election Officer, the State Election Commissioner is powerless to direct re-polling even if he is satisfied that free and fair Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599675/

9

Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

election has not taken place. The Election Commission is empowered to act upon such reports, but it does not mean that it is powerless bereft of such reports. The onerous duty is cast on the Election Commission to hold a free and fair election. If the Commission receives any information about the impurity of the election - such information can be the report of the officials, complaints by candidates, agents or voters and even newspaper reports - it can and should act. It of course depends upon the satisfaction of the Election Commission on the basis of materials to come to any particular decision as to whether polling process should be interfered with. Since it is the duty of the Election Commission to ensure a free and fair election, it is within its power to direct re-polling or fresh polling in any of the booths or any of the wards, if in its opinion, of course on the basis of materials on record and not arbitrarily, it is necessary to hold such fresh election. As observed in Mohinder Singh Gill's case, the Commission cannot act in an arbitrary fashion. Similarly, in view of the constitutional and statutory obligation to ensure a free and fair election, the Election Commission cannot be an embodiment of inaction merely because formal reports are not forthcoming from the election officials when complaints are made either by the candidates or the agents or even members of general public on the date of election or even newspaper published soon thereafter. It is the duty of the Election Commission to look into such matters in a dispassionate manner. There may be cross-checking of any aspect, if necessary, to come to any conclusion as to whether there is any necessity of fresh polling in any of the ward or most of the wards or even in none of the wards. Once he comes to such a conclusion, even though such a decision may be open to judicial scrutiny either during the election or even thereafter, it is obvious that the Court is required to give due credence to the decision and not to interfere on the slightest pretext. The High Court, at that stage, is not expected to act as an appellate authority. Obviously the court is bound to decide such matters within the limited, but, well known parameters. If the Court comes to a conclusion that the decision of the Election Commission cannot be sustained, the Court has power to remedy the mistake. Similarly if the court comes to a justifiable conclusion that the Election Commission has failed to discharge its constitutional duty and obligation, the court has jurisdiction to issue necessary directions by way of mandamus to the Election Commission or even issue positive direction in the matter, if the materials before the Court so justify. 226. If what happened was a negation of the lofty democratic values held so dear as apparent from the observations made by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions and was a mockery of democracy, certainly it was the constitutional obligation of the Election Commission to draw from the "reservoir" and to take prompt remedial measures. He was not expected to "fold his hands and pray to God for divine inspiration"." (Emphasis Supplied) In the above referred decision it is further held that mere pendency of writ petitions will not prevent the Election Commissioner from trying to ascertain the truth. He cannot claim that because the issue was pending, he was precluded to consider the issue. 23. Here in this case admittedly 62 writ petitions were pending and 201 complaints were received apart from newspaper reports alleging irregularities in filing nominations /preventing from filing nominations. Hence the Government thought fit to cancel the elections as large scale irregularities were pointed out and found them true. In fact, by taking such a decision, the Government also put on notice that it has got power to cancel elections to maintain the purity of election process and it Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599675/

10

Dr.P.Rajaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2008

can administratively interfere for upholding the conduct of free and fair elections. It will be a deterrent to the unscrupulous candidates and the biased election officials in indulging in such malpractices affecting the purity of election process. 24. In the light of the decision referred above, the findings of which can be applied to the facts of these cases, I am of the view that the decision taken by the Government is legal and valid. Since the Co-Operative Societies are administered by the Special Officers all these years, as promised in the impugned order, the first respondent shall take effective steps to notify new dates for holding fresh elections. 25. In view of the above findings, I hold that there are no merits in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. vr To 1. The Secretary to the Government, Co-Operation, Food & Consumer Protection (CJ1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 3. The Deputy Registrar (Non-Loan), Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies, Kuralagam, Chennai 600 018. 4. The Special Officer, Madras Advocates Co-Operative Society Ltd, High Court, Chennai

600 104.

5. The Election Officer, The Madras Advocates Co-Operative Society Ltd., High Court, Chennai 600 104. 6. The Deputy Registrar, Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies, Krishnagiri.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599675/

11