IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18583 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAJALAKSHMI V, GOURI NILAYAM, CHELAMBRA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NAFEESA V.P., PATHIYATT HOUSE, CHELAMBRA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ANITHA T.P., MANGALASSERY HOUSE, CHELAMBRA P.O., MALAPPURAM 4. M.SREEMATHI, PRASHEEJA PALACE, CHALIPARAMBU, CHELAMBRA P.O., MALAPPURAM 5. RADHAMANI C.P., KARAYIL PURAYIL VEEDU, KOLAKKATTUCHALICHELAMBRA, MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GEN), MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, CHELAMBRA VANITHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.681, UNIT INSPECTOR, KONDOTI UNIT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KONDOTI 3. M.P.SUBRAMANIAN, ENQUIRY OFFICER/ UNIT INSPECTOR, KONDOTI UNIT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KONDOTI BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.18583 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1. 2. Ext.P1 is a communication issued by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioners herein, the members of the Managing Committee of the Chelambra Panchayat Vanitha Sahakarana Sangham Ltd., to appear for an enquiry under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for recovering their dues pursuant to a order dated 8.1.2009 issued by the first respondent. 3. Two objections are raised by the petitioners. One is that the officer who issued Ext.P1 himself is the Administrator and that for personal reasons they do not expect him to be impartial. Second objection raised by the petitioners is that the proceedings dated 8.1.2009 referred to in Ext.P1, have not been issued to the petitioners. These are the main contentions raised. WP(c).No.18583/09 2 4. In so far as the impartiality alleged against the 3rd respondent is concerned, I feel that, if the petitioner are having any genuine reasons to apprehend bias or other impartiality on the part of the 3rd respondent, it is always open to them to move the first respondent in which event I have no reason to think the first respondent will not bestow his attention to the grievance raised and take appropriate action. 5. As far as the complaint of the petitioners that they have not been disclosed the grounds on which the enquiry is ordered and that copy of the order is not not served on them, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to move the first respondent for a copy of the order in which event the respondent shall serve a copy of the order dated 8.1.2009 on the petitioners. In order to enable the petitioners to move the first respondent as stated above, it is directed that the enquiry pursuant to Ext.P1 be deferred for 4 weeks, so that in the meanwhile petitioners can get copy of the order and also seek WP(c).No.18583/09 3 change of the Enquiry Officer, if so desire. I clarify that I have not dealt with the merits of the contentions raised and it will be open to the petitioners to challenge the enquiry or the order dated 8.1.12009 t the appropriate stage, if they so desire. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment before the respondents 1 and 3 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.18583/09 4