IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1559 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.M.MATHEW, PITTAPPILLIL HOUSE, KADAVOOR P.O. VIA. POTHANIKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. T.J.PAUL, THEKKEKUNNEL, KADAVOOR P.O. DO. DO. 3. T.D.GEORGE, THEKKEKALAMATTATHIL, CHATHAMATTAM P.O., DO. DO. 4. P.C.GEORGE, PADINJAREKARAYIL, CHATHAMATTAM P.O., DO. DO. 5. P.M.SOMAN, PALLIKKAPARAMBIL, AYAMKAR, PAINGATTOOR, DO. DO 6. P.M.KOAYAKUTTY, PERINGATTUPUTHENPURAYIL, PANAMKARA, KADAVOOR P.O., DO. DO 7. VALSA KURIAKOSE, PUNNATHARA HOUSE, NJARAKKAD, KADAVOOR P.O., DO. DO BY ADVS. SRI.P.J.MATHEW, SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.1559 of 2009-I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners have been issued a notice for surcharge proceedings under the KCS Act. They contend that the allegations therein are baseless and that there is no sufficient jurisdictional material to commence proceedings for surcharge. It is, pithily, pointed out that the exercise is only a political manoeuvre to ensure that some of the petitioners who are members of the committee in office of the society concerned are identified as surcharged and accordingly, later disqualified to continue in the committee. That situation, as of now, would, in turn, result in the equations in the committee tilting the political balance in the conglomeration of political identities of the persons who that now hold office. But, these considerations are not matters which the courts WP(C)1559/2009 -: 2 :- will presume or assume. Political malafides is a growing area identifiable as one which may arise during judicial review. But every political exercise or political wisdom does not give rise to any assumption of political malafides. Actuation amounting to malice in administration motivated by political considerations may be a particular matter. But, mere superficial allegation of political bias or probable political victimization is insufficient to unsettle a statutory process commenced by a competent statutory authority. 2.On facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the allegations are in relation to expenditure in excess of approved estimates in relation to the construction of a branch building of the co-operative bank. These are matters which would give rise to mixed questions of fact and law, for appropriate decision. The petitioners have appeared before the statutory authority and have been granted a short adjournment to place WP(C)1559/2009 -: 3 :- their objections. The questions are in the realm of finance. Therefore, the statutory authorities will ensure that the petitioners are given sufficient opportunity to meet the allegations against them, particularly when surcharge proceedings, if ultimately ordered against the petitioners, would result in deprivation of property by recovery proceedings, apart from creating a situation where they could be proceeded for a declaration, by the competent authority, as to disqualification from continuing in office, though disqualification from the committee is not an automatic fall out of surcharge order and that may call for an independent proceeding. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is closed ordering only that the petitioners will be given adequate opportunity and a decision will be rendered on the proceedings initiated against them after considering their contentions. It goes without saying that this judgment is issued WP(C)1559/2009 -: 4 :- without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to challenge the final order in the impugned proceedings, in accordance with law, if it comes out to be adverse against them. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/160109