IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2478 of 2009(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. G.SUGUNAN, MEMBER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING AND PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD NO.T.383,NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. T.ARJUNAN, MEMBER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST;CO-OPERATIVE MERKETING AND PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.383,NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. B.HARIDAS,MEMBER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST;CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD NO.T.383,NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. B.S.SWATHY KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR,(UNIT INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,NEDUMANGAD CIRCLE),THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING AND PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.383, NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.2478 of 2009-T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.First petitioner is the President and petitioners 2 and 3 are members of the committee of the co- operative society to which the second respondent has been appointed as part-time administrator on the basis that the committee has lost quorum following resignations. The plea of the first petitioner is that he had never received the resignations or had never forwarded the resignations except two. According to him, there is no fall of quorum. 2.The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the files pointed out that the Joint Registrar through the Assistant Registrar's report had materials before him to conclude that majority of the members of the committee had resigned and WP(C)2478/2009 -: 2 :- that, therefore, there was a total failure of the machinery of the committee of the society and that it was inexcusably essential to appoint a part-time administrator. This may be so. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that there were attempts to move no-confidence motion against the first petitioner, however that, the meeting could not be held on two occasions. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that on 16-1-2009, the Joint Registrar attempted to convene a meeting of the society, but failed. This is, obviously, denied by the petitioners. 3.The impugned action has been taken on 17-1-2009 on the basis of the report of the Assistant Registrar on 16-1-2009 and further report on 17-1-2009. 4.The first proviso to Section 33(1) provides for an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing. It also provides that the rule of hearing could be WP(C)2478/2009 -: 3 :- excluded in circumstances where the statutory authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to extend such facility. It is explicit from the face of Ext.P4 that the Joint Registrar did not conclude that he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to publish notice as enjoined in the first proviso occurring under Section 33(1) of the Act. Once a rule of hearing is prescribed, also prescribing the circumstances under which it could be excluded, the opportunity of hearing cannot be excluded except under such circumstances. Therefore, the impugned decision is bad. 5.But, in the light of the assertion of the Joint Registrar regarding the materials available and the stand of the petitioners that even the alleged resignation letters are fabricated, all that is required to secure the ends of justice and prevent miscarriage of justice is that the part-time administrator shall not do anything in the administration of the society except carrying WP(C)2478/2009 -: 4 :- out day to day activities and the Joint Registrar shall give the petitioners and other members of the committee an opportunity of hearing on the question whether there was a fall in the quorum and take a decision appropriately. Obviously, the question whether the petitioners or any other member had resigned could be a matter falling for consideration, having regard to the scope of objections that could fall within the first proviso to Section 33(1). Let the Joint Registrar decide on the aforesaid issue within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the Joint Registrar concludes that the committee has quorum, it goes without saying that the committee will be put back in office. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/