IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 23396 of 2001(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.K. SREEKUMARAN NAIR, S/O. LATE K. KRISHNA PILLAI, ANANTHA BHAVAN, VALAVU NADA, KOTTUKAL.P.O., BALARAMAPURAM,\ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.B.PRADEEP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, VIZHINJAM UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE THANNIMMOODU RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, T. NO. 141, THANNIMMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2 & R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S. MUHAMMED HASHIM, R3 BY ADV. MR.V.G.ARUN, MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, ALONG WITH O.P NO. 24530 OF 2001, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 23396/2001-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/06/1999 PASSED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 19/07/1999 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.4. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 31/08/1999 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/07/2001 PASSED BY THE R.4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.Nos.23396 & 24530 of 2001 ================== Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these original petitions are former managing committee members of the Thannimmoodu Rural Housing Co-operative Society, the 3rd respondent in O.P.No.23396/2001. They are aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P4 orders (in O.P.No.23396/2001) of the original and appellate authorities, pursuant to the proceedings under Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for surcharging the petitioners for certain acts of the petitioners allegedly causing loss to the Society. The very same orders are challenged in the other writ petition by two other managing committee members, who also have been surcharged for the same acts. The orders relate to 13 alleged instances of causing loss to the Society, all of which were found against the petitioners and the petitioners were directed to pay surcharge as computed in Ext.P1 order. 2. The petitioners' contention is that to the show cause notice issued under Section 68, the petitioners filed detailed reply which has not been considered either in Ext.P1 or in Ext.P4. Instead, after stating that the petitioners had filed replies to the notices issued, the same are purported to be rejected merely stating that the objections are not sustainable. According to the petitioners, when the petitioners o.p.23396/01 & cc 2 had in their replies stated reasons why they are not liable to be surcharged in respect of each charge, without considering each objection raised by the petitioners and stating as to why the objections are not sustainable, such objections cannot be rejected by a blank sentence that the objections are not sustainable without giving reasons. So also, the petitioners point out that in the appellate order also there is no specific consideration of the contentions of the petitioners except that after hearing it has been proved that the action of the petitioners was in violation of the circular issued in respect of the same. 3. The learned Government Pleader would oppose the contentions of the petitioners pointing out that each and every charge against the petitioners have been detailed in Ext.P1 and since the objections of the petitioners have been found unsustainable, the surcharge order has been made, which, according to the learned Government Pleader, is perfectly valid and proper. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. After reading Exts.P1 and P4, I have no hesitation to hold that they are violative of the principles of natural justice in so far as they do not give reasons for the conclusions arrived at therein especially since the petitioners had filed detailed objections. It is true that in Ext.P1 all the charges have been specifically extracted. It is o.p.23396/01 & cc 3 stated therein that the petitioners were given notices calling for their objections, two hearings were conducted and in the second hearing, the petitioners had filed objections to the show cause notices. What were those objections is not mentioned anywhere in Ext.P1 or in Ext.P4. It is not stated anywhere in Ext.P1 or in Ext.P4 as to why the objections raised by the petitioners are not sustainable. Further, from Ext.P1 I find that the first charge against the petitioners is that, by spending Rs.30,000/- for purchasing a property for the society without complying with the procedure prescribed for the same, the petitioners have caused loss to the society. The entire amount of Rs.30,000/- has been demanded with 18% interest amounting to Rs.56,250/-. The asset purchased by Rs.30,000/-, viz., immovable property, is not referred to as an asset of the society. As such, I am at a loss to understand how the entire amount can be considered to be the loss to the society, when using that amount an asset has been purchased for the society. It is not as if that asset is worthless. I could have understood if on sale of that property the amount realised is less than Rs.30,000/-, the balance of which could have been held to be the loss caused to the society. This aspect has not been considered at all either in Ext.P1 or in Ext.P4. I have cited the same only as an example to show that Exts.P1 and P4 are non-speaking orders without taking into account relevant aspects which have bearing on the liability of the o.p.23396/01 & cc 4 petitioners to make good the alleged loss caused by their alleged illegal act. Similar arguments can be raised against other charges also. This is a matter which should have been specifically considered by the 1st respondent before passing Ext.P1 order. Having not done so, I am satisfied that Ext.P1 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Since Ext.P4 order also is not a speaking order dealing with the specific objections of the petitioners or the grounds raised in Ext.P2 appeal, Ext.P4 is also violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned orders in these original petitions are quashed. It would be open to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, which shall be passed giving specific reasons as to how the petitioners are liable to be surcharged, dealing with the objections filed by the petitioners against the proposal to surcharge them giving reasons as to why the objections are not acceptable. I make it clear that since only three managing committee members have approached this Court, their case alone need be considered afresh and orders against others would stand since they have not chosen to challenge orders against them. The original petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.23396/01 & cc 5 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.Nos.23396 (I) & 24530(T) of 2001 ================== J U D G M E N T 21st December, 2009