IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1667 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20842/2009 Dated 24/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------ THE PRESIDENT, CHAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1514, CHETTACHAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.A.G.ANEETHA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.No.1667 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He is the President of the Chayam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. He apprehends that the Managing Committee headed by him will be superseded on untenable grounds, for extraneous reasons. The Managing Committee of the petitioner's Society has been served with Ext.P10 notice proposing to supersede the Committee under Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the reasons mentioned in the said notice. The said notice is apparently issued relying on Ext.P11 report submitted under Section 65 of the Act, concerning the functioning of the Society, by the competent officer. According to him, the contents of that report are also untenable and cannot be made the basis for any action against the Managing Committee. In the above background, this Writ Petition was filed challenging Ext.P10, though by a typographical error in the prayer portion of the Writ Petition it is mentioned as Ext.P11. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the W.A. No.1667/2009 2 notice maintaining the view that it is premature for the petitioner to challenge that notice. The appellant prayed before the learned Judge for granting stay of the order that may be passed by the Joint Registrar, if the same is adverse to him. There were two decisions of this Court, concerning the said relief sought by him; one in Writ Appeal No.1239/2009 and the other in W.A.No.1967/2007. Apparently, those decisions expressed divergent views. The learned Judge after referring to both the decisions took the view that the decision in W.A.No.1239/2009 dated 2.7.2009 is a binding precedent and therefore, the learned Judge followed that decision and declined the said relief sought by the appellant. Aggrieved by the above judgment, this Writ Appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the learned counsel, Mr.Swathi Kumar, for the appellant. He submitted that most of the allegations raised in Ext.P10 relate to the period of the previous Committee and therefore they cannot be the basis for action against the present Committee. The allegations concerning this Committee mentioned in Ext.P10 are baseless and unfounded and cannot be acted upon for superseding the Committee. The learned counsel also submitted that the decision in W.A.No.1239/2009 was W.A. No.1667/2009 3 rendered without taking note of the unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1967/2007 and therefore, the former decision requires reconsideration. 3. If a notice, issued under Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, does not contain any valid ground, even if, all the allegations stated therein are taken to be true, the same can be successfully challenged before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court will quash that notice and issue a writ of prohibition against the Joint Registrar asking him not to proceed further with the matter. But, in this case, we notice that if the allegations, some of which are admittedly pertaining to the period of the present Committee, are taken to be true, it cannot be held that even then no ground subsists for action under Section 32 of the Act. So, it is for the appellant to place the correct facts regarding those allegations before the Joint Registrar and persuade him not to take any further action. If any order is passed contrary to law, the appellant can approach this Court and we are sure this Court can pass appropriate interim orders, even in the nature of interim direction to restore the Committee, which has been superseded, if it is, prima facie, found that the order under W.A. No.1667/2009 4 Section 32 of the Act was passed not on valid grounds or for extraneous reasons and balance of convenience is in favour of the writ petitioner. So, we agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the present Writ Petition is premature and therefore, it cannot be entertained. The second relief sought by the appellant that the order which may be passed against him may be stayed for two weeks is also plainly untenable. This Court can grant stay of an order, if it is produced before this Court and if it is found that the same is illegal and balance of convenience warrants an order of stay. An order, which is yet to be passed cannot be stayed by this Court and if it is done, it will be an abuse of the process of the Court also. On finding two decisions, if the learned Judge felt that the decision later in point of time, giving reasons for the view taken therein should be followed, we think that the view taken by the learned Judge cannot be faulted. Therefore, this Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps