Kerala High Court
Sasidharan K vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
1
W.P(C) No.26997 of 2018 2025:KER:54562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO.26997 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
SASIDHARAN K., AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.SADANANDAN, PRESIDENT, REPRESENTING
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE URUKUNNU RURAL CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD.NO.Q1468, P.O.URUKUNNU, PUNALUR TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PALAKKUNATHU VEEDU,
URUKUNNU P.O., PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 307.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SMT.ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
SRI.T.H.ARAVIND
SHRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
SHRI.G.RENJITH
SMT.K.SEENA PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)
KOLLAM - 691 001.
4 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 305.
5 THE UNIT INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
2
W.P(C) No.26997 of 2018 2025:KER:54562
ANCHAL UNIT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PUNALUR - 691 305,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
6 THE URUKUNNU RURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.Q 1468,
P.O.URUKUNNU, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691 307, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
7 MR.SUMESH R., RAGHAVA MANDIRAM, EDAMON,
PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 307.
ADDL.R8 ISMAIL, AGED 67 YEARS, SANJAY MANZIL,
EDAMAN P.O., PIN-691307.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.SASITH
SHRI.M.MANOJ KUMAR
SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2025,
THE COURT ON 25.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(C) No.26997 of 2018 2025:KER:54562
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P6 order dated 24.07.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent herein. He is stated to be the President of the 6th respondent Co-operative Society, and the term of the Board of Directors of which is stated to expire by 03.01.2022. The petitioner states that by Ext.P1, the Unit Inspector of Co- operative Societies, Thenmala was appointed for an enquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short, the 'Act') and for furnishing of a report in that regard. Ext.P2 is the report submitted by the Unit Inspector as above. Relying on the report at Ext.P2, notice under Section 32(1) of the Act, seeking to supersede the Board of Directors, was issued. The petitioner was before this Court in an earlier round of litigation, seeking to challenge the proceedings at Ext.P3, contending that steps are being taken for superseding the elected committee contrary to the provisions of the statute. By 4 W.P(C) No.26997 of 2018 2025:KER:54562 Ext.P5 judgment dated 23.03.2018, this Court held that action under Section 32 of the Act shall be taken against the petitioner only after hearing him as well as other members of the Committee and also taking note of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach [2013 (2) KLT 733]. The petitioner laments that, insofar as no proceedings could be continued under Section 32, the Joint Registrar issued at Ext.P6, accepting the report of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and directed the Unit Inspector of Co-operative Societies, Anchal Unit, to conduct an enquiry under Section 68 of the Act.
2. I have heard Sri. K. Ramakumar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The short issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as regards the sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P6 issued by the Joint Registrar as above.
5
W.P(C) No.26997 of 2018 2025:KER:54562
4. It is not in dispute that Ext.P6 has been issued with reference to the provisions of Section 65 of the Act. Under the provisions of Section 65 of the Act, it is true that the Registrar can hold an enquiry by himself or by persons authorised by order in writing into the constitution, working, and financial condition of a Society, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so. However, the circumstances under which the Registrar can order such an enquiry have been specifically laid down under Section
65. True, the Registrar, on his own motion, can initiate an action under Section 65. He can also do so on the basis of an application by the majority of the members of the Committee of society, or not less than one-third of the total members of society, or by not less than the members required for the quorum of the general body meeting, whichever is less, to initiate the proceedings. In the case at hand, a reference to Ext.P6 would show that the steps under Section 65 have been initiated not on the basis of any suo motu action or on the basis of an application by the majority of the members of the committee. A Division 6 W.P(C) No.26997 of 2018 2025:KER:54562 Bench of this Court in Melukkara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. PT. 152 and Another v. Joint Registrar (General), District Co-operative Society [2018 (2) KHC 143], has categorically found that unless there is subjective satisfaction by the Registrar, the inquiry order by him cannot be sustained. In other words, the Registrar is not to act mechanically based on a complaint from an individual or on the basis of the report of the Unit Inspector. The Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 22 of the afore judgment has held as under:
"22. What was required for the Registrar to have done was to take into account all relevant factors and circumstances and to have caused at least an inspection of the records and materials maintained by the society before recording his satisfaction as to whether an inquiry under S.65 of the Act was required. It was not proper on his part to merely rely upon the report of the Assistant Registrar and then to say thatAct.s prima facie satisfied, when it is obvious from Ext.P1 that there was nothing before him, except that report, which could have led him to such a satisfaction and obviously going by the provisions of the Statute, the satisfaction of the Assistant Registrar cannot be in lieu of the satisfaction to be personally arrived at by the 7 W.P(C) No.26997 of 2018 2025:KER:54562 Registrar, who is vested with the powers to cause an inquiry under S.65 of the Act."
In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner as above are one without following the mandate under Section 65 of the Act, and hence, the proceedings at Ext.P6, directing a further enquiry under Section 68, also cannot be sustained. This Court further notices that, through Ext.P6, the Unit Inspector attached to the Office of the Assistant Registrar (General) has been entrusted with the enquiry under Section 68 of the Act. A reading of Ext.P6 would also show further that the Assistant Registrar, Punalur, has already submitted another report on 27.01.2018. When the Assistant Registrar has already submitted a report, there is no meaning in entrusting the further enquiry to a Junior Officer - the Unit Inspector. To that extent, the bias alleged by the petitioner appears to be justifiable. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in Dinakaran P.D. (Justice) v. Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee and Others [AIR 2011 SC 3711], would 8 W.P(C) No.26997 of 2018 2025:KER:54562 also apply to the case at hand.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that Ext.P6 issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kollam, cannot be sustained. Hence, this writ petition would stand allowed, quashing Ext.P6.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON,
JUDGE
ln
9
W.P(C) No.26997 of 2018 2025:KER:54562
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26997/2018
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.HM(2)7656/16 DATED 19/08/2017
ISSUED BY R3.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.1427/2017 DATED 30/12/2017
SUBMITTED BY THE UNIT INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, THENMALA.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.HM(2)7656/16 DATED 05/03/2018
ISSUED BY R3.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 12/03/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23/03/2018 IN WPC.NO.10231 OF 2018.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.HM(2)7656/18 DATED 24/07/2018 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM.