Supersession of co-operative committee upheld where Registrar acted on relevant material and no prior audit was required.

Section 72 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act did not require the Registrar to first resort to audit, inquiry or inspection under sections 64 to 66, or to afford prior rectification of defects, because those procedures were not made conditions precedent and the Registrar only needed to form an honest opinion on relevant material. The High Court's Article 226 jurisdiction was confined to judicial review and did not permit reappraisal of the facts or substitution of its own view for the Registrar's assessment. On the stated facts, no jurisdictional or legal infirmity was shown, so the supersession orders were upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, before taking action under section 72 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, the Registrar was bound to have an audit, inquiry or inspection under sections 64, 65 and 66 and to afford an opportunity to rectify defects disclosed thereby; (ii) Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 with an order of supersession passed under section 72.

Issue (i): Whether, before taking action under section 72 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, the Registrar was bound to have an audit, inquiry or inspection under sections 64, 65 and 66 and to afford an opportunity to rectify defects disclosed thereby.

Analysis: Section 72 did not expressly incorporate sections 64 to 67, unlike sections 70 and 85 which specifically referred to those provisions. The scheme of the Act showed that audit, inquiry and inspection under sections 64, 65 and 66 were distinct powers, and only consultation with the financing bank was made an express condition under section 72(6). The Registrar's opinion that the committee was not functioning properly had to be formed honestly on relevant material, but the section did not require prior recourse to audit, inquiry or inspection or a prior direction to remedy defects as a condition precedent.

Conclusion: The Registrar was not bound, as a condition precedent to action under section 72, to first proceed under sections 64, 65 and 66 or to require prior rectification of defects.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 with an order of supersession passed under section 72.

Analysis: The High Court's power under Article 226 was limited to judicial review and did not permit it to sit in appeal over the Registrar's factual assessment. The material before the Registrar disclosed no jurisdictional infirmity or other ground warranting interference. The orders of supersession were therefore not liable to be quashed merely on reappraisal of the facts.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was unwarranted on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the Registrar were upheld, and the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers power on a Registrar to supersede a committee on his opinion that it is not functioning properly, the power may be exercised on relevant material without first exhausting other inspection or remedial procedures unless the statute expressly makes them conditions precedent; judicial review under Article 226 remains confined to jurisdictional error, illegality or similar infirmity.

---