MADURAI: Issues related to a cooperative society cannot be inquired into by way of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), especially when the petitioner is not a member, asserted a division bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
"A Public Interest Litigation ought to be filed by a public-spirited individual, drawing the attention of the Court and seeking assistance in bringing to order any aspect that directly affects the public at large," stated Justices CV Karthikeyan and R Sakthivel. "A PIL cannot be resorted to when there is a private grievance or to wreak vengeance on a particular private individual or society, as in this case," the judges observed.
The court was hearing a petition filed by one Sathrak seeking the records related to resolution no 6 passed by Marthandam Beekeepers Cooperative Society in Kanniyakumari in respect of an ICDP loan repayment from the Society's exchequer. He also sought to quash the resolution as null and void.
The court further stated that a PIL cannot be filed to put into effect any procedure unless it is shown that the authority has deliberately failed to follow the said procedure. The court stated that when a specific relief is sought relating to a particular Society (more particularly with respect to a specific resolution passed by that Society) the writ can never be termed as a Public Interest Litigation.
The court was not inclined to examine even the nature of a resolution passed, particularly because Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, provides a statutory relief for enquiries and investigations into the affairs of any Society. The Legislature has not only enacted a particular provision of law in this regard but has also framed rules. Rule 104 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, provides the procedure regarding enquiry, inspection and investigation.
The court noted that the petitioner does not claim to be a member of the said Society and is a stranger to the Society. It is not known why he insists on interfering with the affairs of the Society. It is claimed that he had filed an earlier writ petition, and the present writ petition appears to be a cut-and-paste copy of the earlier writ petition, the court said.
