IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 526 of 2011(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SIBY SEBASTIANE,KUTTAMPEROOR HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE.P.O,CHANGANASSERY-6, (VICE PRESIDENT-THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL CO-OP.SOCIETY,KUMARANALLOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM). 2. V.O.JOSEPH KUTTY,NALPATHAMKALAM, PERUMPANACHY.PO,CHANGANASSERY,(DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBER -THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL CO-OP.SOCIETY,KUMARANALOOR.P.O,KOTTAYAM). BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CO-OP.DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, (REGISTRAR OF DIRECTORATE,OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE-KOTTAYAM (JOINT REGISTRAR OF INDUSTRIAL CO-OP.SOCIETIES-KOTTAYAM),DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICE,KOTTAYAM-686001. 4. ASST.DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICE,KOTTAYAM-686001. 5. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT MINI-INDUSTRIAL CO-OP.SOCIETY,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL CO-OP.SOCIETY,KUMARANALOOR.P.O,KOTTAYAM-679552. 6. MANAGING DIRECTOR,INDUSTRIAL CO-OP. SOCIETY,OFFICE OF THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL CO-OP.SOCIETY,KUMARANALOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM-679552. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.526 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are members of the Managing Committee of the fifth respondent society. They have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 enquiry report submitted by the fourth respondent to the third respondent who in so far as the fifth respondent society is concerned is the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies competent to order an enquiry regarding the functioning of the society under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The petitioners also seek a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to serve a copy of the enquiry report evidenced by Ext.P2 to the petitioners and to hear them before passing orders under section 32 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under rule 66(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that copies of Ext.P2 report have not been served on the members of the Managing Committee except the President and on the terms of sub-rule (5) of rule 66, the Registrar can pass orders after receipt of the enquiry report only after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the society and the person/persons concerned. It is contended that without serving notice on all the W.P.(C) No.526 of 2011 2 members of the Managing Committee, the third respondent cannot pass orders superceding the committee. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits, on instructions, that a copy of Ext.P2 report was furnished to the President of the fifth respondent society and his acknowledgment obtained in the local tapal register. In my opinion, the service of notice on the President of the society is not sufficient. If, Ext.P2 is to form the basis of any further action by the third respondent, third respondent should before passing an order pursuant to Ext.P2 enquiry report serve copies of the enquiry report on all the members of the society and the employees, if any, named therein. The petitioners have further contended that the enquiry which resulted in Ext.P2 was held without following the procedure prescribed in sub-rule (2) of rule 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, since a copy of the order authorising the enquiry under section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act was not issued to the petitioners. I find no merit in the contention that the petitioners were entitled to a copy of order authorising the enquiry. All that sub-rule (2) of rule 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules states is that a copy of order authorising enquiry under section 65 of the Kerala Co- W.P.(C) No.526 of 2011 3 operative Societies Act shall be issued to the President or the Secre ary of the society concerned by registered post with acknowled ment due. The President of the society has not in Ext.P3 stated th t a copy of the order authorising enquiry has not been issued t the Secretary of the society concerned. The contention in second pa agraph of Ext.P3 would only indicate that the President did not recei e a copy of the order authorising the enquiry. On the terms of sub- rule (2) of rule 66, it is not necessary that a copy of the order authorising the enquiry should be issued to the President of the society, if it has been issued to the Secretary of the society by registered post with acknowledgment due. I, therefore, find no merit in the contention of the petitioners that failure to issue a copy of order authorising the enquiry to President or the other members of the society vitiates the enquiry. 4. I shall now deal with the petitioners contention that third respondent can pass orders only after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the society and the person or persons concerned. Sub-rule (5) of rule 66 states in express terms that after receipt of the enquiry report, the Registrar may pass such orders as may be considered just, after giving an opportunity of being heard to W.P.(C) No.526 of 2011 4 the society and the person(s) concerned. The petitioners are admittedly members of the fifth respondent society. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the third respondent should furnish copies of the enquiry report to all the members of the Board of Directors and the officers of the society who are named in Ext.P2 report before proceeding to pass orders pursuant to the report. I, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to furnish copies of the enquiry report to all the members, if the Board of Directors and the officers and employees of the society who are named therein before passing orders pursuant to the report of enquiry evidenced by Ext.P2. The Registrar shall also afford them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.