IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2976 of 2011(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M.V.SASIKUMARAN NAIR, PRESIDENT, THE SASTHAMKOTTA PRIMARY CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.373, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM-690 521. 2. SANATHANAN PILLAI V., (FORMER SECRETARY OF THE SASTHAMKOTTA PRIMARY CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK), PRESIDENT, KARIMTHOTTUVA SCB LTD.2594, KARIMTHOTTUVA P.O., SASTHAMKOTTA KOLLAM-690 521. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES(G), KOLLAM, PIN-690 521. 2. THE SASTHAMKOTTA PRIMARY CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.373, REP. BY SECRETARY, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM-690 521. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2976 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is the President of the second respondent bank. The second petitioner was the former Secretary of the second respondent bank. He is presently the President of yet another service co-operative bank. In this writ petition, they challenge Ext.P5 notice issued by the second respondent calling upon them to show cause why they should not be surcharged under section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Ext.P5 notice discloses that an enquiry into the functioning of the second respondent bank was held under the provisions of section 65 of the Act and that Ext.P5 was issued pursuant to the report submitted after such enquiry. By Ext.P5, the petitioners were called upon to offer their explanation in writing within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. They were also informed that they will be heard on 27.1.2011 personally. Under the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the petitioners are entitled to be put on notice and heard before they are surcharged and from an order of surcharge, an WPC No.2976/2011 2 appeal lies to the Government under section 83(1)(e) of the Act. The petitioners have no case that the first respondent is not competent or empowered to issue an order of surcharge or to proceed against them under section 68 of the Act. Further Ext.P5 discloses that it was issued pursuant to a report of enquiry under section 65 of the Act. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P5 show case notice is the result of a premeditated effort to disqualify the petitioners. I therefore find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that if within two weeks from today the petitioners file their objections to Ext.P5 show cause notice, the first respondent shall consider the same and also afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard before passing orders under section 68 of the Act. If the Joint Registrar has already passed orders pursuant to Ext.P5 notice, the petitioners can challenge the said order in appeal before the Government. Their contentions in that regard are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.2976/2011 3 WPC No.2976/2011 4