IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 1145 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ V.V.VENUGOPALAN,VELUR VALAPPIL HOUSE J.N.ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) PERINTHALMANNA. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) MALAPPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1145 OF 2008 (J) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P6 and P9. Ext.P6 is a show cause notice issued to the Directors of the Malappuram District Tourism Promotion and Development Co- operative Limited under Section 68(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Notice has been issued in pursuance to a report under Section 65 of the Act submitted to the 2nd respondent and the complaint in this writ petition is that since the main allegations in Ext.P6 notice are based on the findings in the report under Section 65, without furnishing a copy of the said report, the petitioner is disabled from filing an effective reply to Ext.P6 notice. Taking note of this grievance highlighted in the writ petition, by order dated 10/1/2008, this Court directed the respondents not to proceed further without supplying a copy of the report under Section 65. 2. On instructions, today learned Government Pleader confirms that in pursuance to the said order, a copy of the report has been furnished to the petitioner. If that be so, the aforesaid WPC 1145/08 :2 : grievance no longer survives. 3. Yet another prayer made in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P9 passed under Section 68(1). Since reference to Ext.P9 is also made in Ext.P6, it is for the petitioner to answer those allegations in Ext.P6, which are made based on Ext.P9. However, that by itself is no reason to quash Ext.P9. ' 4. In the light of the above, what is required to be done is that the petitioner should file objection to Ext.P6, in which event, it is for the 2nd respondent to pass orders under Section 68 of the Act. 5. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: That it will be open to the petitioner to file his explanation to Ext.P6, within four weeks from today, in which event, after issuing notice and hearing the petitioner in this matter, the 2nd respondent shall finalise the proceedings. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp