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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
