IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22050 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CHANGANACHERRY RUBBER MARKETING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD NO.K.364, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KARUKACHAL PO, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KOTTAYAM. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. CR P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22050 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P3 notice ordering Section 66 (2) Enquiry by the respondent in respect of the affairs of the petitioner society. The challenge raised in the Writ Petition is mainly on a legal ground, contending that, section 66 (2) enables the Registrar to order any such enquiry only on two circumstances, the first one, either on his ‘own motion’ or on the application of a ‘creditor’ of the society. 2. The learned counsel submits that, the impugned notice itself reveals that, the enquiry has been ordered pursuant to the complaint preferred by some of the ‘employees’ of the petitioner society and this being the position, it does not come within the purview of either of the two limbs, so as to sustain the notice issued under Section 66(2). 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived. In so far as the Registrar is very much having the power to order such enquiry ‘suo motu’, the fact that such enquiry has been ordered on receipt of a complaint by the employees, does not tilt the 2 WP(C) No. 22050/2010 balance in any manner. 4. Going by the undisputed facts and figures, it remains to be a fact that the complaint stated as preferred by the employees is mainly with regard to the non-payment of the salary and the adverse circumstances prevailing in the petitioner society. The fact that the Registrar is having ‘suo motu’ power to order enquiry is rather conceded. This being the position, what prompts the Registrar to order such ‘suo motu’ enquiry or whether the decision to conduct the ‘suo motu’ enquiry is based on any solid material or not is of no consequence. Further, status of the employee who has not been paid his salary, could very much equated to a ‘creditor’ of the society and there is nothing wrong on the part of the Registrar in ordering an enquiry under Section 66(2), if any complaint is filed by such employees. More so, when no restrictive definition is given in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules with regard to the term ‘creditor’. The scheme of the statute as reflected from Section 66 is only that, if at all the enquiry is to be made by the Registrar on the basis of a representation from a creditor, it shall be subject to the requirements as stipulated therein and unless and until the prescribed conditions are not satisfied by the ‘creditor’, the application cannot be acted upon. However no such stipulation will be relevant or germane with regard to the enquiry ordered 3 WP(C) No. 22050/2010 by the Registrar ‘suo motu’. The power of the Registrar to conduct ‘suo motu’ enquiry being independent of any condition, the source of information for ordering such enquiry is rather immaterial. This Court also finds support from a similar view taken by this Court already, as per the decision reported in Sadsivan K.G. Vs. Joint Registrar and others [ILR 2008 (1) Ker 64]. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Interference is declined and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc