IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13019 of 2008(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.GOVINDAN, S.I. OF POLICE (RETIRED) KANIKUNNU, THALIPARAMBA 670141. BY ADV. MR.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KANNUR. 2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PRESIDENT, TALIPARAMBA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. F-1264, THALIPARAMBA. 5. TALIPARAMBA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F-1264, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADVS. MR.C.A.JOSEPH FOR R4,5 MR.K.K.MOIDEEN FOR R4,5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.13019 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought in this writ petition are the following: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 & 2 to take appropriate action under Section 32 and 68, of the Co- operative Societies Act, against the 4th respondent and others who are indicted in Ext.P3 report; ii) To issue a direction to the 1st respondent to set criminal law in motion against the persons who indulged in misappropriation of funds of the bank in relation to the matters covered under Ext.P3.” 2. In so far as these prayers are concerned, the petitioner relies on Exts.P1 & P3. Ext.P1 is a special Audit Report for the year 2004-05, and Ext.P3 is a report submitted under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, referring to the irregularities that were noticed. 3. The petitioner submits that although, proceedings under Section 68 of the Act have already been initiated, still the respondents are bound to supersede the Committee in Office invoking their powers under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative WP(C) No.13019/2008 -2- Societies Act. 4. Facts show that the allegations in this writ petition concerns the Committee, which was in Office during 1998-2003 & 2003-08. Admittedly, in October, 2008, election was conducted and a new committee was assumed office. Although, it is a fact that 5 out of 9 members of the aforesaid committee are still continuing in office, the question is whether for the alleged irregularities committed by the Committees, which were in office during 1998- 2003 & 2003-2008, the Committee, which assumed office in 2008, can be superseded. 5. Section 32 of the KCS Act contemplates supersession of the Committee, and the wordings of the statute are in present tense, which makes it clear that such supersession can be only of the Committee which committed irregularities, and not a Committee, which has assumed office at a subsequent point of time. If so, consequent on the election that was held in October, 2008, a new Committee was assumed office, and the petitioner cannot make a prayer for superseding the present committee in office. This position of law is settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the WP(C) No.13019/2008 -3- judgment in K.V.Mohanan v. State of Kerala & Others, rendered on 08/08/2004 in W.A.No.1363/2004. 6. The other prayer made by the petitioner is that a direction should be issued to the respondents to initiate criminal proceedings against those who have been found to have committed various irregularities of a penal nature. Here again, in this writ petition, none of those persons, who are likely to be affected by such an order, have been impleaded as respondents. In their absence, this Court will not be justified in passing any order having such disastrous affect on those persons. Therefore, this prayer also cannot be granted. 7. Needless to say that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in pursuing remedies, if any, that is available to him in law. The writ petition fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg