IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 739 of 2010 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11997/2010 Dated 07/04/2010 .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- N.K.VARGHESE, PRESIDENT, THE MANANTHAVADY FARMER'S SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 4034, MANANTHAVADY. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.K.G.RAJEESH RESPONDENT ---------------------- THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), WAYANAD. SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER (CO-OP.) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 14273 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.739 OF 2010 & W.P.(C)No.14273 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of August 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant is stated to be the elected President of Mananthavady Farmers Service Co-operative Bank (for short 'the Bank'). 2. The Joint Registrar (General), Wayanad issued Ext.P2 notice under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969 calling upon the members of the managing committee of the Bank to show cause why action as provided under Section 32(1)(d) of the Act shall not be initiated for the various alleged misdeeds enumerated therein. 3. The above notice was sought to be quashed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. It was further prayed that the Joint Registrar be directed not to take any action against the managing committee “without service of notice” and that the order, if any, that may be passed by the said authority be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of service of that order. 4. On a motion made by the appellant, the learned Single Judge considered the question whether there were any exceptional circumstances to grant an interim order not to implement the order that may be passed by the Joint Registrar pursuant to Ext.P2 notice. The W.A.No.739 OF 2010 & W.P.(C)No.14273 OF 2010 :: 2 :: learned Judge, after considering the contentions of the appellant and the respondent, answered the question in the negative. The above order is under challenge in this appeal. 5. At the very outset, we may make it clear that we do not propose to deal with any of the charges or allegations made by the Joint Registrar against the appellant or the members of the managing committee in Ext.P2 show cause notice for the reason that any such discussion may be unwarranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly since, further action pursuant to the notice is still awaited. Such a decision by the Joint Registrar is kept on hold apparently, for the reason that this court has by its order dated May 4, 2010 in a connected Writ Petition (W.P.No.14273/10) directed that supercession of the committee, if any, proposed, be kept in abeyance. The said interim order is being extended from time to time. The above writ petition was also tagged on with this writ appeal, when its pendency was brought to our notice and also since learned counsel for the parties agreed that the same can also be heard along with this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order only on the ground that the learned Judge has touched upon the merit of the case at more than one place in the impugned order. We find W.A.No.739 OF 2010 & W.P.(C)No.14273 OF 2010 :: 3 :: considerable force in the above contention. It would have been appropriate, if the learned Judge did not go into the merit or demerit of the contentions raised by the appellant while seeking for an interim order. 7. Anyhow, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the authority that may consider further action pursuant to the notice issued under Section 32 of the Act shall decide the matter untrammelled by any of the views or opinions expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Since the only issue involved is the tenability or otherwise of the charges levelled against the managing committee and also the sustainability of the proposed action under Section 32, we are of the view that it will be appropriate if the authority which has issued the notice be given liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 8. It is the admitted position that the appellant as well as the petitioner in Writ Petition No.14273/10 apart from the other members of the committee have already responded to Section 32 notice and submitted their respective replies to the same. In that view of the matter, what remains is only consideration of the case put forward by these persons before the authority concerned. In any view of the matter, the W.A.No.739 OF 2010 & W.P.(C)No.14273 OF 2010 :: 4 :: prayer made by the appellant and the writ petitioner in these two cases to quash the show cause notice cannot be entertained or sustained. 9. Therefore, the writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of with a direction to the Joint Registrar (General), Wayanad to take a decision in the matter pursuant to Section 32 notice issued already. The Joint Registrar shall ensure that the appellant, the writ petitioner and all other members of the committee are given sufficient opportunity to be heard. A decision in the matter shall be taken in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While taking a decision, the Joint Registrar shall further ensure that he is not in any way influenced by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 7/4/2010. Writ appeal and writ petition are disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes