IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 28426 of 2007(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- SANTHA NAIR, AGED 76,D/O. KALYANI AMMA, THIRUVONAM, T.C. 6/1597,34 P.T. NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VAZHUTHACAUD R.NARENDRAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES OFFICE OF REGISRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES, (GENERAL)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES,(AUDIT) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE CREATIVE ARTS AND CULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES LTD NO. 4349,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTHAMANGALAM PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN - R1 TO R4 SRI.S.KRISHNAKUMAR-R6 SMT.K.V.JAYANTHI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).28426/2007-H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF AUDIT CERTIFICATE DATED 18/05/2002 FOR THE YEAR 1996-97 EXT.P2: COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 24/05/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF AUDIT CERTIFICATE DATED 18/05/2002 FOR THE YEAR 97-98. EXT.P4: COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 24/05/2005 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF AUDIT CERTIFICATE DATED 18/05/2002 FOR THE YEAR 1998-99. EXT.P6: COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 24/05/2005 TENDERED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF AUDIT CERTIFICATE DATED 31/01/2003 FOR THE YEAR 1999-2000. EXT.P8: COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 24/05/2005 OF PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF AUDIT CERTIFICATE DATED 31/01/2003 FOR THE YEAR 2000-2001. EXT.P10: COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 24/05/05 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 15/09/2004 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF ORDER DATED 26/07/2004 BY 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF ORDER DATED 17/11/2005 BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO.29233/2006 (E) DATED 07/11/2006 HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P15: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.291 OF 2007 DATED 09/02/2007. EXT.P16: COPY OF ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31/08/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): COPY OF DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAWAL OMISSIONS OF BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 1998-99. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF DETAILS OF RECEIPT OMISSIONS 1998-99. // TRUE COPY // Rs/ Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.28426 of 2007 ================================== Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner was the President of the sixth respondent co-operative society. Going by the pleadings, which are not controverted by the sixth respondent, it appears that she was essentially the one who promoted and worked for the sixth respondent society. An enquiry under Section 65 is stated to have been held by one Smt.Sobha who was the competent officer at the relevant time, however that, thereafter certain audit reports came into existence, which, according to the petitioner, have illegally and unauthorisedly resulted in reconciliation of liabilities between the petitioner and the society in such a manner that the amounts which are admittedly due to the petitioner have been WPC28426/2007 -:2:- treated as liable to be set off towards amounts allegedly due from the petitioner to the society. 2. For one thing, when Section 65 enquiry has concluded with no findings against the petitioner, it was inappropriate for such issues to be agitated by the society on the basis of audit report. That apart, the auditor has no authority to adjudicate on the inter se liability of the petitioner, who was, at that point of time, the President of the society and also creditor in view of the admitted outstandings due from the sixth respondent to her and the society. Yet when the society took refuge under the audit reports, the petitioner moved the statutory authorities and then this Court. Ext.P14 judgment was issued stating WPC28426/2007 -:3:- that no situation arose for Section 65 enquiry and hence the petitioner was not entitled to relief in WP(C)No.29233 of 2006. The Division Bench came to her aid and relegated her to the the Joint Registrar for consideration of the report of the Assistant Registrar. The aforesaid essentially shows that the sixth respondent could not invoke any proceedings for surcharge or for any other mode of recovery against the petitioner referable to any conduct that could be attributed to her while in office. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned orders are only to be vacated leaving the petitioner with liberty to move the appropriate authority under Section 69 of the KCS Act for adjudication of the dispute between her and the sixth respondent which would entitle her to claim the relief of return of WPC28426/2007 -:4:- money. Writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned orders and directing that if the petitioner moves the competent Arbitrator or the Arbitration Court, as the case may be, in terms of Section 69, such proceedings shall be finalised within an outer limit of six months without fail, having particular regard to the age of the petitioner. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.