Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 9230 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.5712 OF 2021(L)
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
ANANTHAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. T-184,
KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-695024, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.P.SUBAIR KUNJU
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL)
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (GENERAL), RAJAJI NAGAR,
MARKET ROAD, STATUE, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN CODE-695001.
2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL),
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-695001.
3 THE OFFICER ON INQUIRY/UNIT INSPECTOR,
SREEKARIYAM, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-695541.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP BIMAL K NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).5712/2021
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the managing committee of a primary co-operative
miscellaneous society functioning under the provisions of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act and the Rules therein. The facts disclose that, in
2018, an enquiry was ordered by the first respondent under section 65
of the KCS Act into the affairs of the society by Ext.P2 order. The
enquiry was not completed within the statutory period of one year.
Hence, another enquiry was ordered by the first respondent on the very
same subject matter by Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4
proceedings ordering enquiry clearly show that the Joint Registrar did
not apply his mind while ordering enquiry and that there was no
independent application of mind by the authority. Learned Senior
Counsel invited my attention to Ext.P1 ,which is the genesis of the
entire proceedings. It is a complaint submitted by one P.Ramakrishnan
Nair to the Minister for Cooperation dated 11.06.2018. Minister
endorsed that an enquiry shall be conducted into the alleged
malpractices in the bank and to take appropriate action against the
persons found guilty and to report. According to the petitioner, this
direction was given to take appropriate action to punish the guilty. This
has influenced all further proceedings. According to the petitioner,
Ext.P2 indicates that first respondent was guided by the direction to W.P(C).5712/2021
take action against guilty and he commenced from the premise that the
persons were found guilty. According to the petitioner, this was
amplified by the fact that an enquiry could not be conducted within the
stipulated time and another enquiry was ordered. The continuance of
enquiry amounts to harassment and hence liable to be quashed.
2. When the matter was taken up for final hearing today,
learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the
first respondent has decided to withdraw the further proceedings. It is
further stated that, appropriate orders have been issued yesterday. It
was pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader that, an
order has been issued indicating that, due to technical reasons, the
above proceeding could not be continued and hence it is withdrawn,
without prejudice to further necessary action as found in accordance
with section 65 of the KCS Act.
3. This is recorded and necessarily writ proceedings cannot
continue.
4. This conduct of the first respondent was vehemently opposed
by the petitioner contending that, this indicates the respondents were
bent upon harassing the petitioners. Ext.P2 r/w Ext.P1 clearly indicated
that, there was absolute non application of mind and the proceedings
were initiated pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P1. Any
further action taken by the Joint Registrar pursuant to Ext.P1, even by W.P(C).5712/2021
rectifying the inherent flaws in the enquiry cannot be salvaged by a
subsequent order, it was contended. Ext.P2 pursuant to Ext.P1 thereto
can only indicate lack of application of mind and malafide action, it was
contended. It seems that, there is considerable substance in the
contention taken up by the petitioner. Any further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P1, even by a fresh order, can still be overshadowed by
the endorsement on Ext.P1. I do not propose to make any further
comment on that.
Writ Petition is closed recording the above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Sbna JUDGE
W.P(C).5712/2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR TO THE MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATION DATED 11.6.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.P(2) 6858/18 DATED 27.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.P(2) 6858/2018 DATED 12.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.P(2) 6858/18 DATED 21.5.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.P(2) 6858/18 DATED 4.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER/REQUEST BEARING REF.NO.703/19-20:HO-1-01/20 DATED 11.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER/REQUEST BEARING REF.NO.720/19-20:HO-3-01/20 DATED 13.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!