IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26665 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, PRESIDENT, NEDUVANNOOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F. 1269, NEDUVANNOOR.P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 2. C.K.ABDUL RAHMAN, EX-COMMITTEE MEMBER, NEDUVANNOOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F. 1269, NEDUVANNOOR.P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 3. SUDHAKARAN NAMBEESAN, COMMITTEE MEMBER, NEDUVANNOOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F. 1269, NEDUVANNOOR.P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 4. C.T. DEVI, COMMITTEE MEMBER, NEDUVANNOOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F. 1269, NEDUVANNOOR.P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 5. V.K.RAMESH BABU, COMMITTEE MEMBER, NEDUVANNOOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F. 1269, NEDUVANNOOR.P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 6. SHUKKOOR THAYYIL, EX-COMMITTEE MEMBER, NEDUVANNOOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F. 1269, NEDUVANNOOR.P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 7. RAHIM EDATHIL,COMMITTEE MEMBER, NEDUVANNOOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F. 1269, NEDUVANNOOR.P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 8. CHERIYA ARIYAN, COMMITTEE MEMBER, NEDUVANNOOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F. 1269, NEDUVANNOOR.P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 9. IBRAHIM MANNANKANDI, COMMITTEE MEMBER, NEDUVANNOOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F. 1269, NEDUVANNOOR.P.O.,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR WP(C).No. 26665 of 2010(G) 2 RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673004. 2. THE UNIT INSPECTOR, QUILANDI UNIT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) QUILANDI, KOZHIKODE- PIN-673305. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES (G) QUILANDI, KOZHIKODE 673305. BY G.P.SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26665 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 2nd September, 2010 JUDGMENT The first petitioner was the President and the other petitioners were the Managing Committee members of the Neduvannoor Regional Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.F.1269. Except petitioners 2 and 6 all the others are still members of its Managing Committee and in the case of the first petitioner he is its present President. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P16 purported to have been passed by the first respondent under Section 68(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (`KCS Act' for short). According to the petitioners, no proper enquiry was conducted before issuing Ext.P16. That apart, it is their contention that the entire proceedings have been initiated by the first respondent on the dictate from the office of the Minister and, in fact, it is actuated by malafides. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that the factum of recovery effected to make good the loss, sustained to the bank on that count as revealed from Ext.P10 certificate, was not taken into account while issuing Ext.P16. It is their further contention that the auction purchaser of the old bank building had sustained heavy loss and on his representation the committee allowed to pay him the auction amount in WP(C).No.26665/2010 2 instalments. A perusal of Ext.P16 would reveal that the total loss to the tune of Rs.45,176/- was assessed based on the second count and as relates the first count it was found that shifting was done without obtaining prior permission from the Registrar and the amount of unauthorised expenditure and consequential loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.98,966/-. In the said circumstances, adverting to Section 68 of the KCS Act, the learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the first respondent is incompetent to issue Ext.P16 order because no proper enquiry was conducted in terms of Section 68(1) of the KCS Act. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P4 is the report of the Section 65 enquiry and the same has not so far been challenged by the petitioners and therefore, it has attained finality. That apart, it is submitted that Exts.P7 to P9 would reveal that Ext.P16 has been issued after strict compliance with the provisions under the Act, with authority. Therefore, the contentions on behalf of the petitioners that no proper enquiry was conducted before issuing Ext.P16 is absolutely bereft of any basis, it is contended. However, the contention of the petitioners is that there is nothing on records to saddle liability on the petitioners and therefore it is illegal to cast a liability on them and to issue Ext.P16 requiring them the amount specified therein. The loss sustained was ascertained under two heads; viz., the first one was on account of WP(C).No.26665/2010 3 granting instalment facility to the bidder and the second one was with respect to the unauthorized expenditure and the consequential loss in the matter of shifting of building of the bank. The contention of the petitioners is that Exts.P10 and P18 would reveal that the said findings are absolutely unsustainable. In order to appreciate and accept the contentions of the petitioners, the correctness of the facts have to be ascertained. I do not think that this Court has to undertake such an endeavor at this stage especially when an appeal can be filed against Ext.P16 in the light of the specific provisions under Section 83(1)(e) of the KCS Act. The question of jurisdiction of the first respondent can also be raised in such an appeal. When an alternative efficacious remedy is provided under the KCS Act, there is no reason for entertaining this writ petition at this stage. In view of the fact that Ext.P16 is appealable under Section 83(1)(e) of the KCS Act, I am of the view that the petitioners are bound to resort to that appellate remedy in case they are aggrieved by Ext.16. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS