The Nedumangad Taluk Government ... vs The Joint Registrar Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2456 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                              &
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
 FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                    WA NO. 309 OF 2022
         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2022 IN
         WP(C)NO.4944/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:

          THE NEDUMANGAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES'
          WELFARE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.T 1490
          OPPOSITE TO STATE BANK OF INDIA, NEDUMANGAD,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -695541,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
          BY ADVS.
          GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
          ARUN CHANDRAN
          NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    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 -695001.
    2     THE OFFICER ON INSPECTION
          UNIT INSPECTOR, (UZHAMALAKKAL UNIT), (OFFICER
          APPOINTED TO CONDUCT INSPECTION UNDER SECTION 66
          OF THE KCS ACT BY ORDER DATED 23/09/2021),
          NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
          -695541.


          SRI.V.K.SUNIL.SR GP

     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Writ Appeal No.309 of 2022            2



             P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
              -----------------------------------------------
                  Writ Appeal No.309 of 2022
              -----------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 4th day of March, 2022.


                              JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 17.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No.4944 of 2022. The appellant

was the petitioner in the writ petition.

2. The appellant is the Managing Committee of

an employees' co-operative society (the Society) registered and

functioning under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969

(the Act) and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (the

Rules). On 03.02.2022, the Assistant Registrar, exercising the

powers of the Registrar under the Act in respect of the Society

issued an order directing inspection of the books of the Society

on eight irregularities reported to him by the officers

subordinate to him in the course of the periodic inspections in

the Society mentioned in the order. Ext.P1 is the order issued

by the Assistant Registrar in this regard, invoking the power

under Section 66 of the Act. The writ petition was one instituted

challenging Ext.P1 order mainly on the ground that the said

order is vague in as much as it does not reveal as to whether

the inspection is under sub-section (1) of Section 66 or sub-

section (2) of the said Section and that an inspection under

Section 66 cannot be directed on the facts stated in the order.

Most of the allegations of irregularities mentioned in the order

are incorrect was another ground urged to impugn the order for

inspection. Yet another ground urged was that the inaction on

the part of the Joint Registrar himself is a cause for some of the

irregularities and there cannot, therefore, be an inspection in

respect of those matters.

3. The learned Single Judge took the view that an

inquiry by this Court into the correctness or otherwise of the

grounds urged, which essentially involve factual adjudication, is

neither warranted nor called for at this stage and consequently

dismissed the writ petition leaving open the rights of the

appellant, and directing that in the event of the appellant

submitting explanations to the points for inspection referred to

in Ext.P1 before the officer authorised to conduct the

inspection, he shall advert to the same while dealing with the

matter. The appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the

learned Single Judge and hence this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant

submitted that the grievance voiced in the writ petition is

mainly against the first respondent himself and it was therefore

highly inappropriate for the learned Single Judge to direct the

appellant to prefer a representation in respect of the same

before an officer subordinate to the first respondent who is

authorised to conduct the inspection. It was also argued by the

learned counsel that when some of the irregularities mentioned

in the order arose on account of the inaction on the part of first

respondent in dealing with the applications preferred by the

appellant from time to time for permissions and approvals

required under the Act and Rules for carrying on the activities

of the Societies in a legitimate manner, an inspection under

Section 66 of the Act ought not have been ordered in respect of

such irregularities. It was pointed out by the learned counsel

that Ext.P1 order does not indicate as to whether the inspection

is under sub-section (1) of Section 66 or sub-section (2) of the

said Section. According to the learned counsel, if Ext.P1 is an

order issued under sub-section (2) of Section 66, it could have

been done only on his own motion by the Joint Registrar or on

an application preferred by the creditors of the Society. It was

submitted that Ext.P1 order being one issued on the basis of

the reports submitted by the officers subordinate to him, the

order of inspection is bad in law. It was also argued by the

learned counsel that at any rate, the first respondent ought to

have forwarded copies of the various reports referred to in

Ext.P1 order before ordering an inspection into the books of the

Society. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel that

Ext.P1 order is not an isolated one and similar orders are being

issued against all the societies in the State controlled by

political parties other than the political parties which are in

power in the State and therefore, the impugned order is

vitiated by malice too.

6. We do not find merit in any of the contentions

raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Ext.P1 is only

an order directing inspection under Section 66 of the Act. As

noted, the main contention raised is that it does not indicate as

to whether the inspection is under sub-section (1) of Section 66

or sub-section (2) of the said Section and that if the same is one

under sub-section (2) of Section 66, it could have been done

only on his own motion by the Joint Registrar or on an

application preferred by a creditor of the Society and Ext.P1

being one issued on the basis of the reports submitted by the

officers subordinate to the first respondent, the same is bad in

law. The aforesaid contention is raised on the premise that the

power conferred on the Joint Registrar to order an inspection

under Section 66 on his own motion cannot be exercised based

on the reports of his subordinate officers. Identical argument

advanced to challenge an order directing inquiry under Section

65 based on reports of subordinate officers was repelled by this

Court as per the judgment in W.A.No.232 of 2022. In the light of

the judgment in the said case, the argument aforesaid is only to

be rejected.

7. There is no requirement of law that the

materials, on the basis of which an inspection under Section 66

is proposed, shall be forwarded to the Society before ordering

inspection. That apart, the order impugned in the writ petition

is only an order directing inspection under Section 66 of the

Act. The report of the inspection will not in any manner affect

the Society. Of course, if the report is adverse, further action

against the Society is permissible under the Act. The statute

provides for notice to the Society before any action on the

report of the inspection. As such, there is absolutely no merit in

the contention that the copies of the reports of the inspection

referred to in Ext.P1 have not been forwarded to the appellant.

8. It is seen that when it was argued before the

learned Single Judge that the irregularities mentioned in the

impugned order on which the inspection was ordered are

factually incorrect, the learned Single Judge permitted the

appellant to point out the same to the officer authorised to

conduct the inspection and directed the said officer to take note

of the same while drawing up his report of inspection. We do

not find any infirmity in the said direction. Merely for the reason

that the appellant contends that some of the irregularities

resulted on account of the inaction on the part of the Joint

Registrar in dealing with the applications for permissions and

approvals submitted by the appellant, it cannot be said that the

same cannot be taken note of by the officer conducting the

inspection while drawing up his report.

9. It is unnecessary to consider the contention of

the appellant that Ext.P1 order is vitiated by malice as it is

found that the said order is one issued in conformity with the

statutory requirement. It is all the more so since the report of

the inspection will not in any manner affect the Society at this

stage.

In the light of the said discussion, the appeal is

liable to be dismissed and we do so.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Sd/-

C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.

YKB