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 TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WA.No. 2016 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29220/2008 Dated 03/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ M.R.SIMON, PRESIDENT, CHENKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1258, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ JOINT REGISTRAR (G) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.G.ANEETHA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2016 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.29220/2008 dated 3.10.2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. 2. The appellant/petitioner is the President of the Managing Committee of Chenkal Service Co-operative Bank. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner had called in question the correctness or otherwise of the notice issued by the competent authority in exercise of the powers under Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (“Act” for short). By the impugned notice, the competent authority has directed the Executive Committee members of the Bank to offer their explanation, if any. Without even waiting for the orders that would be passed by the competent authority after considering the objections that may be filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. 3. In our opinion, the petition filed by the petitioner is wholly premature. It is not the case of the petitioner before this Court that the authority who had issued the notice is not competent to issue the W.A.No.2016/2008 -2- notice or the notice is issued under a repealed provision. The main grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the authorities who have issued the notice immediately after hearing the petitioner would pass an order and thereafter would take over the administration of the Bank by appointing an Administrator. Further, in the writ petition, a request is made for giving a breathing time to the petitioner and similarly placed persons to approach superior Forums after an order is passed under Section 32 of the Act. 4. In our opinion, none of the reliefs sought by the petitioner can be granted by this Court. The appellant/petitioner is before this Court at the stage of a show cause notice. Since it is not the case of the petitioner that the said notice is issued by an incompetent authority, interference by us is not called for. This Court in the case of Narayanan Nair Vs. Vaikom Palliprathusserry Service Co-operative Bank (2003 (2) KLT 44) has categorically stated that except in exceptional circumstances this Court should not direct the authorities under the Act to keep in abeyance the order that would be passed by them under Section 32 of the Act. This Court in the aforesaid decision has observed as under: “Hence, in the normal course the parties should be left to W.A.No.2016/2008 -3- avail of the statutory remedies available to them and the High Court should not derail the procedure contemplated under the statute by directing the statutory authority not to implement the order passed by it. We find force in the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. We are of the view that, unless there are special circumstances which would indicate that the authorities will not act bona fide and fairly and will deliberately delay the communication of the order of supersession so that the members of the committee will not get an opportunity to file appeal and seek stay of the order before the Administrator takes charge, this Court will not be justified in exercising the power under Art.226 of the Constitution to direct the statutory authority not to implement its order even for a limited period. In the absence of such special circumstances, the court should leave the matter to be dealt with by the statutory authorities in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Even if such special circumstances exist the court should refer to such special circumstances and record its satisfaction about the need for issuing a direction not to implement the order of the statutory authority passed under S.32 of the Act. A mere apprehension of the members of the committee that the order of the Joint Registrar is likely to be against the committee or that the Administrator may take charge of the management of the W.A.No.2016/2008 -4- society before the superceded committee files appeal and seeks stay, is not a sufficient or valid ground or justification for directing the Joint Registrar not to implement his order under S.32 of the Act.” 5. In view of the above, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in not entertaining the writ petition. We do not see any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. 6. Immediately after passing the order under Section 32 of the Act, the authority concerned shall make available copies of the said order to the appellant/petitioner or any other Executive Committee Member of the Chenkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., forthwith. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS