IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 W.A.No. 1934 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17652/2007 DATED 27/06/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES (GENERAL), ALAPUZHA. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KUTTANAD. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.G.ANEETHA. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & IST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. G.MADHAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ADIMANA ILLOM, THAKAZHY P.O., ALAPUZHA. 2. S.AJITH, KONAD VEEDU, THAKAZHY P.O., ALAPUZHA. 3. P.SOBHA, CHIRYIL VEEDU, THAKAZHY P.O., ALAPUZHA. 4. T.K.VASANTHY, PRATHEESH BHAVAN, THAKAZHY P.O., ALAPUZHA. 5. K..UTHAMAN, PUTHUVEEDU, THAKAZHY P.O., ALAPUZHA. W.A.No. 1934 of 2008 -2- 6. THAKAZHY VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.958, THAKAZHY P.O. ALAPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 TO R5 BY ADV.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1934 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 25th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The Joint Registrar and Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Alappuzha and Kuttanad respectively have filed this writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17652 of 2008 dated 27th June, 2008. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has set aside Ext.P9 order of appellant No.1 by which the administration of Respondent No.6 Co-operative Bank was handed over to the Administrator. 2. It is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants that the learned Single Judge had jumped to unwarranted conclusions on the basis of conjectures and surmises. She further contends out that the finding of the learned Judge that there was no effective consultation with the Circle Co-operative Union and the Financing Bank as contemplated under Section 32(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act') is manifestly erroneous. W.A.No.1934 of 2008 2 3. A brief reference to the essential facts is necessary to consider whether any interference is warranted with the impugned order. 4. It is on record that the appellants had initiated an enquiry against the Managing Committee of the Bank under Section 65 of the Act, alleging that there were widespread complaints of financial mismanagement and misappropriation of the funds of the Bank. It is also the admitted position that subsequently an enquiry under Section 32 of the Act was also held. Thereafter Ext.P6 notice was issued by appellant No.1 calling upon the Managing Committee to show cause why action under Section 32(1) of the Act shall not be initiated against them. Ext.P7 reply was submitted in response to the said show cause notice. 5. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P6 notice was issued on April 18, 2007 directing the members of the Managing Committee to appear before the Joint Registrar on May 2, 2007 for hearing. On that day, Ext.P8 Report submitted by the Assistant Registrar was made available to the noticees as requested by them. But hearing was adjourned to May 5, 2007. 6. The members of the Managing Committee had appeared for hearing before the Joint registrar on the appointed day. But immediately after the hearing, the Administrator had assumed charge of W.A.No.1934 of 2008 3 the Bank at 1.30 P.M. on the same day itself. Apparently Ext.P9 which runs into 11 pages, must have been prepared, type written and forwarded to the Administrator within a few minutes in order to enable him to assume charge at 1.30 P.M. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge the entire exercise was carried out by the appellants with unholy haste. More importantly, it could not be discerned from the materials available on record that such an exercise could have been accomplished within such a short span of time. 7. The learned Judge had rightly considered all the attending circumstances leading to Ext.P9 order. It is observed by the learned Judge that there was no meaningful or effective consultation with the Circle Co-operative Union and the Financing Bank as contemplated under Section 32(2) of the Act. In this context, the learned Judge had also referred to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sahadevan v. Padmanabhan (2004 (1) KLT 192) in which it was held that the consultation mandated by the above statutory provision should be meaningful. 8. We have heard learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants at length and perused the relevant materials available on record carefully. We are totally satisfied that the learned W.A.No.1934 of 2008 4 Judge was justified in holding that there was patent infraction of the statutory provisions of the Act and that the action taken by the appellants was totally arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Evidently the appellants had flouted the statutory mandates in their anxiety to overthrow the duly elected Managing Committee. We do not propose to make any further comment on the conduct of the appellants at this juncture. But it has to be stated that the attempt of the appellants was to make a mockery of the statutory provisions. No court of law can countenance such a high handed act. 9. We do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellants. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns