IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1363 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22050/2010 Dated 16/07/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ CHANGANACHERRY RUBBER MARKETING CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY, LTD.NO.K.364, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KARUKACHAL.P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1363 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the Writ Appeal is whether the learned single Judge was right in holding that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies could order enquiry against a society under Section 66(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act based on a complaint filed by it's employees who are not paid salary/wages. The learned single Judge took note of the fact that the section authorises enquiry either suo motu by the Registrar or on complaint from a creditor. In the first place, the learned single Judge found that employees who are in arrears of salary are creditors of the society and so much so they could themselves file a petition for holding enquiry. Further, in this case, the complaint filed by the employees was acted upon by the Registrar in exercise of his suo motu power for ordering enquiry. This position is also seen decided by this Court vide judgment in SADSIVAN K.G., V. JOINT REGISTRAR, ILR (2008) 1 Ker. 64. We do not find any justification WA 1363/2010 2 to take a different view from what is taken by the learned single Judge, which finds support in the earlier judgment of this Court. Government Pleader submitted that enquiry is over and a copy of the report is also filed in this Court based on interim orders issued by the Division Bench. We do not think there is any need for us to look into the enquiry report because so long as enquiry is valid, which we found against the appellant, it is for the authorities to serve a copy of the enquiry report on those against whom action is proposed based on findings in the enquiry report. Writ Appeal is dismissed leaving freedom to the respondents to take appropriate action based on enquiry report. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk WA 1363/2010 3