IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25996 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE PRESIDENT, NRI'S WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.C. 1549, MATTANNUR P.O., MATTANNR, KANNUR 670702. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KANNUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOOTHUPARAMBU, KANNUR. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.25996 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the President of a co-operative society which is a multi purpose co-operative society registered for the purpose of the welfare of the Non Resident Indians. Petitioner challenges Ext.P8, a notice issued under Section 32 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter, the 'Act' for short. The petitioner has been given an opportunity of being heard. But the day to which the matters stood listed before the competent authority was a day of strike in Kerala. Obviously, the petitioner will have further opportunity of hearing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner very strenuously argued that among the five grounds raised in the notice under Section 32 (1), none really exists. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that those grounds are wholly insufficient to take any drastic steps referable to Section 32. There is no exceptional situation warranting exercise of authority under Section 32 and thereby removing the committee WPC.25996/08 Page numbers in office. He specifically pointed out that no acts of corruption or mis-appropriation is even alleged. It is further stated that the petitioner is involved in activities which are wholly within the format and permissible limits of its by-laws and the rules. He also states that an application has been filed for adjournment of the matter for further opportunity of hearing. 3. Learned senior Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner has a fair opportunity of hearing and there is nothing on record to show that the proceedings are being misdirected. It is also pointed out that the petitioner, even if faced an adverse order at the hands of the first respondent, will be entitled to further statutory remedies by way of appeal to the Government under the Act and the Rules. It is also argued that the grounds in the notice are regarding serious irregularities, including the leasing out of a shop room without concurrence of the statutory authorities and also regarding different other transactions. WPC.25996/08 Page numbers 4. A perusal of the impugned notice shows that there is no specific allegation of mis-appropriation by members of the committee in office. In that view of the matter, it may be justifiable for the petitioner also to say that a specific allegation of corruption is not there. However, allegations are specific and cannot be treated as vague. Even if those allegations are matters which can be appropriately explained, such explanations are matters for the Joint Registrar to decide and not for this Court to intervene at this point of time in judicial review. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that the petitioner is justified in stating that it would be inappropriate to dislodge the committee without appropriate opportunity for appeal to the Government in the event of the Joint Registrar deciding the proceedings on merits or otherwise to invoke other appropriate remedies on such grounds as may be available within the format of law. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is ordered directing that the first respondent will provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and the committee in office of being WPC.25996/08 Page numbers heard, in accordance with law and decide the matter after adverting to and considering the relevant materials and objections and also keep any decision that may be issued, if adverse to the petitioner and the committee in office, in abeyance for a period of three weeks of its communication. All other contentions are left open. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.30/8.