IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 12832 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.R.SIMON, RESIDING AT M.R.SADANAM, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR (G) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADMINISTRATOR-CHENKAL SCB LTD. 1258/UNIT INSPECTOR, PARASALA UNIT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), NEYYATTINKARA. 3. THE CHENKAL SCB LTD., 1258, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. S.NOOSHAIJA BEEVI, JOINT REGISTRAR (G) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADMINISTRATOR-CHENKAL SCB LTD. 1258/ UNIT INSPECTOR, PARASALA UNIT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), NEYYATTINKARA. R1 BY SPL. GOVT PLEADER SMT.P.A.ANEETHA SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R3 SRI.G.SAKTHIDHARAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.12832/08 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)3776/06 DATED 9.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 9.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)3776/06 DATED 22.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE `1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).4513/08 DATED 8.2.2008 BY this HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.2.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.A5/802/2008 DATED 12.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CHENKAL DATED 16.2.2008. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE NO.CRP(2) 1992/95 DATED 15.5.1995. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF REQUEST TO THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. CO-OP. BANK DATED 1.4.2008. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.CRP(1)3776/06 DATED 1.4.2008 TO THE CIRCLE CO-OPERATIVE UNION. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.12832 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The managing committee of the third respondent in office, with the petitioner as its President, was superseded as per Ext.P1 order. This is under challenge. 2. On an earlier round, the petitioner expressed apprehension that supersession would follow with no grounds being established and that the whole exercise was politically motivated. Accordingly, directions were issued to keep pending any decision, if taken adverse to the petitioner's committee. That decision was sought to be reviewed, the Joint Registrar contending that the period of two months, during which the decision was to be kept under suspension, was too long a spell. Accordingly, that review petition was allowed, bringing down the term, during which any supersession order should stand suspended, to be to two weeks, instead of two months. However, the impugned Ext.P1 order was issued and was given effect to WPC.12832/08 Page numbers forthwith, ignoring the directions of this Court. The situation was thereafter rectified by restoring the committee headed by the petitioner to office and the Registrar placing an apology on record. 3. Different allegations were levelled against the committee. A notice was issued on 22.1.2008. The committee submitted its reply. Without going into the gravity of the allegations or the quality of the reply, it has to be at once noticed that though the Registrar did not decide to exclude the consultation with the Circle Co-operative Union and the Financing Bank, in carrying out the consultation, all that was forwarded to those institutions were the notices issued to the committee under Section 32 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The objections filed by the committee and any tentative decision arrived at by the Joint Registrar were not forwarded. Though there is a statement to the contrary in the counter affidavit of the Joint Registrar, that stands refuted by the production of Exts.P9 and P10 along with the reply affidavit, whereby, the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, has established that WPC.12832/08 Page numbers all that was communicated to the consultants were the letter and a copy of the notice. Neither the objections nor the tentative decision was placed before the consultants. Applying the ratio of the decision reported in Sahadevan v. Padmanabhan [2004 (1) KLT 192], it needs to be emphasised that the Division Bench of this Court has categorically laid down that the consultation has to be on the basis of the allegations against the committee, the reply of the committee to the notice and the tentative opinion formulated by the authority proceeding to exercise power under Section 32 of the KCS Act, after considering the allegations and the answers. Short of that, the impugned Ext.P1 decision fails on a jurisdictional issue. Leaving all the other contentions, the said decision has, therefore, to be quashed. In the result, this writ petition is allowed quashing Ext.P1. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.1/7.