IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34205 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ADV.N.BAJEE, CHAIRMAN, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF NEDUMANGAD URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3193, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.A.G.ANEETHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34205 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, the Chairman of the managing committee of an urban co-operative bank, challenges Ext.P5, a notice issued for proceedings under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter, 'the Act' for short. 2. On the basis of Ext.P1, a notice issued earlier, the Joint Registrar issued Ext.P3 order superseding the committee. This Court set aside that order as per Ext.P4, on the ground that there was no proper consultation with the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union, while it was not a case where the Joint Registrar decided that consultation should be dispensed with. It was held that the Joint Registrar, having decided to consult, was bound to carry out the consultation by putting the necessary materials to the consultants. It was only on that ground that Ext.P4 judgment was issued quashing Ext.P3. The then plea of the petitioner that Ext.P1 ought not to have been WPC.34205/08 Page numbers generated on the basis of the report under Section 66 etc. was left open as noticed in para 4 of Ext.P4. Therefore, stricto senso, Ext.P4 did not touch the sustainability of Ext.P1, either on legality, or on facts. It would be a case where the competent authority could have proceeded from the stage at which the parties were required to appear before formulating a tentative opinion to be put to the consultants. This is the effect of Ext.P4 judgment. Following that, the remit as per Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner is to be heard. 3. Be that as it may, the officer who issued Ext.P1 changed. A new incumbent issued Ext.P5, a fresh notice for proceedings under section 32 (1) of the Act, calling upon the committee to show cause and extending to them opportunity of hearing. 4. The contention of the petitioner in this writ Petition, filed challenging that notice, are that Ext.P5 has been issued as a verbatim reproduction of Ext.P1 and there is no fair application of mind by the officer who issued it. It is further pointed out that WPC.34205/08 Page numbers in obedience to Ext.P4 judgment, even the effect of Section 74 A of the Act has not been considered. It is also pointed out that the impugned exercise is only a camouflage on political motives to create room to supersede the committee headed by the petitioner. 5. As already noticed, following Ext.P4 judgment, proceedings could have gone ahead, even on the basis of Ext.P1. If that be so, even if Ext.P5 is a mere reproduction of Ext.P1, that would make no difference. But, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Ext.P5, having been issued by another officer, it is the satisfaction of that officer, on facts, that ought to have generated Ext.P5. It would be too early for the writ court to conclude on such an issue because the petitioner has a fair opportunity of hearing in answer to Ext.P5 notice and therefore, this Court would not assume that any order would be issued without following the directions contained in the last para of Ext.P4, even if proceedings are initiated independent of Ext.P1 and on the basis of the impugned Ext.P5. WPC.34205/08 Page numbers 6. In so far as Section 74 A is concerned, the direction was that procedure as per that section shall also be followed if such provision applies. The applicability of that provision is a debatable issue. In a way, it is appropriate that Ext.P5 has been issued without answering the applicability or otherwise of Section 74 A. This is because, the impugned notice can be answered by the petitioner even with reference to Section 74 A and such a contention will have to be considered by the authority. Not only that, Section 74 A (iii) apparently does not preclude proceedings under Section 32, though it may oblige the statutory authority under the Act to issue supersession order if the Reserve Bank of India seeks such a direction. For the aforesaid reasons, having held in Ext.P4 that the order has to be issued on the basis of consultation in accordance with law and having regard to the direction contained in that judgment, this writ petition is dismissed preserving all rights of the petitioner even to challenge the issuance of Ext.P5 if it WPC.34205/08 Page numbers becomes ultimately necessary to do so, after the issuance of any final order following Ext.P5. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.