The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to issue to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kancheepuram, to permit the petitioner to appear by a Pleader in proceedings before that officer. It is said that the proceedings before that officer are arbitration proceedings in which a claim for a large amount has has been made against the petitioner. The petitioner received a notice asking him to be present either in person or by a Pleader. When he appeared with his Counsel, the Presiding Officer refused to aceept the vakalat presented by tbe Counsel stating that Advocates are not entitled to represent the parties in the arbitration proceedings. The petitioner claims that when the notice issued to him specifically authorised him to appear either in person or by Counsel, the Deputy Registrar had no authority to refuse to permit the Counsel to appear.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Registrar, it is stated that under the rules framed under the Act, appearance of parties by the Counsel is prohibited. It is no no doubt true that the notice that was issued stated that the party could appear either in person or by Pleader. But that notice was in an obsolete form under Central Act XI of 1912, which form had been inadvertently used in the present proceedings, and whatever the notice might have stated, it is claimed that the rules are against representation by Counsel and that no writ of mandamus can issue.
It is not denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under R. 56 (8) of the rules framed under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, in proceedings before the Registrar or the arbitrator or a body of arbitrators or other persons deciding the dispute, legal practitioners shall not be entitled to appear to represent parties. This rule enacts a prohibition. I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is open to the Registrar to relax this rule. Nor am I willing to agree that such relaxation was ordered, on the ground that the notice issued to the petitioner directed him to appear by a Counsel. I am satisfied that the Deputy Registrar was fully justified in refusing to permit the Counsel to appear in the proceedings and his refusal is warranted by the rule cited.
No grounds exist for issuing a writ of mandamus. The petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
V.C.S