IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 26079 of 2008(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.KRISHNAN NAIR, PRESIDENT, MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, MR.T.R.RAVI. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANEETHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO.2636/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.26079/08 & 2636/2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT These writ petitions are filed by the President of the Managing Committee of the Tirur Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, a Primary Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. For convenience I shall refer to the facts as pleaded in WP(c). No.2636/09 to the extent that is relevant. 2. By Ext.P1, an enquiry under Section 65 was ordered against the affairs of the Chemmadu branch of the aforesaid Bank. Report was submitted. It would appear that Ext.P8 order was issued by the Joint Registrar requiring that the defects be cured in the manner mentioned therein. Petitioner submits that soon thereafter Ext.P4 order was issued by the Joint Registrar ordering further enquiry into the affairs of the entire branches of the bank referred to above. WP(c).Nos.26079/08 & anor. 2 3. Ext.P4 was challenged before this court in WP(c).No. 10382/08 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing that in the enquiry ultimately anything adverse to the Petitioner is disclosed, petitioner will be given adequate opportunity of personal hearing, serving on the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report. Petitioner submits that despite the direction in the judgment they were not heard. On the other hand, according to him, immediately on receipt of the report, Ext.P6 notice for supercession of the committee was issued. Challenging Ext.P6, WP(c).No.26079/08 was filed and Ext.P8 interim order was passed by this court on 29.8.2008 which reads as under. “For further consideration for admission, list on 2.9.08 in the admission list. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner and the committee may submit reply to Ext.P6 and also appear for personal hearing on 30.8.08. If the Joint Registrar so desires, the parties could be even heard on that day, however no final WP(c).Nos.26079/08 & anor. 3 order following Ext.P6 shall be passed.” 4. Subsequently, the order was modified by Ext.P9 order dated 7.10.2008, which reads as under. “Since the personal hearing of the petitioner was fixed on 30.8.08, the Joint Registrar, if he so desires, may pass final orders following Ext.P6, however that it shall not be given effect to without obtaining orders from this court. “ 5. Accordingly, the then Joint Registrar afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 30.8.2008. From the averments in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit itself it is the admitted case that the officer who heard the Petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P6 notice, did not pass orders and retired from service on 30.11.2008. Subsequently, without affording any further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the successor in office, Sri. M. Velayudhan, Joint Registrar, passed WP(c).Nos.26079/08 & anor. 4 Ext.P18 order superseding the Committee of the bank. It is challenging Ext.P18, WP(c).No.2636/09 is filed. 6. Thus admittedly, the Joint Registrar who passed Ext.P18 order did not hear the petitioner. The question is whether this violates the principles of natural justice. This position is settled by this court in the decision reported in Yesudas V. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2009(2) KLT 86). In the light of the judgment, Ext.P18 deserves to be set aside and I do so. The Joint Registrar, the respondent in these writ petitions is directed to reconsider the matter in pursuance to Exts.P8 and P9 referred to above with notice to the parties and in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. It is directed that if the order to be passed is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall be served on the petitioner and shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of service of that order. This order is passed mainly for the reason that such a protection has been ordered by this court in Exts.P8 and P9, while permitting the respondents to pass WP(c).Nos.26079/08 & anor. 5 the impugned order and also due to the fact that the contentions on the merits are not adverted to in this judgment. Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).Nos.26079/08 & anor. 6