[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
M.K. Thomaskutty vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 29 January, 2026
W.A. No. 145 of 2026 :1:
2026:KER:7072
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 145 OF 2026
JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2025 IN WP(C) NO.4202 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
M.K. THOMASKUTTY, AGED 62 YEARS, PRESIDENT,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT VYAPARI VYAVASAYI WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD.NO.K.1220, M.L.ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
O/O THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686 001.
2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
O/O ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G),
KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686 001.
3 UNIT INSPECTOR, KOTTAYAM, O/O THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.
ADDL. R4 ABDUL LATIEF A.H., S/O K. K ABDUL HAMEED, RESIDING AT
HUMAYOON MANZIL, VELOOR, P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 003
(ADDITIONAL R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD 11.11.2025 IN I.A
1/25 IN WPC 4202/25 )
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.KEVIN THOMAS
R4 BY SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
SHRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS
SMT.CELIA SANTHOSH
R1 TO R3 BY SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2026, THE
COURT ON 29.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 145 of 2026 :2:
2026:KER:7072
K. NATARAJAN & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 145 of 2026
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Johnson John, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, President
of the Kottayam District Vyapari Vyavasayi Welfare Co- operative
Society, challenged Exhibit P1 order dated 11.11.2024 of the Joint
Registrar (General) of the Co-operative Societies appointing an officer to
conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the Kottayam District Vyapari
Vyavasayi Welfare Co-operative Society regarding 9 irregularities
enumerated in the order under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, 1969 ('Act, 1969' for short).
2. Heard Sri.P. C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri. T.K. Vipindas, the learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. Arjun Raghavan, the learned
counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
3. The main contention of the appellant is that the learned single
Judge has not considered the challenge against Exhibit P1 order by
W.A. No. 145 of 2026 :3:
2026:KER:7072
holding that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the said
order at this stage and that he can raise his objections only before the
competent authority as and when further proceedings are initiated on
the basis of the inquiry report either under Section 32 or Section 68 of
the Act, 1969.
4. It is pertinent to note that the inquiry ordered under Section 65
of the Act, 1969 is not against the writ petitioner and only regarding the
irregularities mentioned in the said order and therefore, the writ
petitioner cannot be treated as a person aggrieved. In Reji K. Joshy and
Others v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kollam
and Others [2022 (3) KHC 317], this Court held thus:
" ...The scheme of the Act appears to us to be that the correctness or
otherwise of the report of inquiry or inspection, shall be canvassed
by the parties concerned in the hearing provided to them on the
further action taken pursuant to the report, for the hearing would
not serve any purpose if the Registrar does not propose any action
based on the report. Even if the Registrar proposes any action, be it
under Sections 32 or 68, the said action being one on the basis of
the report of inquiry or inspection, the essential purpose of the
opportunity of hearing in the proceedings initiated for taking action
being to enable the parties concerned to canvass for the correctness
of the findings in the report of inquiry or inspection, there is no
need for a hearing before a tentative decision is taken on the action
based on the report. Needless to say, it is unnecessary to have two
W.A. No. 145 of 2026 :4:
2026:KER:7072
hearings for the same purpose. In other words, we are of the view
that the nature of the statutory duty imposed on the authorities
under the Act does not imply any obligation to hear the parties
concerned on the acceptability or otherwise of the report of inquiry
or inspection as the case may be, before a tentative decision is taken
on the further action on the report. ..."
5. In Managing Committee, Vellathooval Service Co-
operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
(General) and another [2020 (1) KHC 746], this Court held thus:
"4. When I peruse the statutory provisions, I find that
Ext.P4 communication that is impugned in the Writ Petition is
one that is traceable to the provisions of R.66(2) of the Kerala Co
- operative Societies Rules and it is merely an intimation to the
petitioner, of the order recording the subjective satisfaction of the
Registrar, as regards the necessity to conduct an enquiry in the
manner stipulated under S.65(1) of the Act. The question that
arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has The locus
standi to impugn the said communication before this Court under
Art.226 of the Constitution of India, on a mere apprehension that
the proceedings that would follow will result in a prejudicial
order against the petitioner. In my view, the petitioner cannot be
said to be a person aggrieved at this stage of the proceedings,
merely on the basis of an apprehension, howsoever strong, that
the proceedings initiated under S.65 will ultimately culminate in
an order prejudicial to its interests. I am of the view that when a
W.A. No. 145 of 2026 :5:
2026:KER:7072
final order is passed against the petitioner under the provisions of
the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act and Rules, the petitioner
can move this Court through a Writ Petition on satisfying the
conditions regarding maintainability of a Writ Petition at that
stage."
6. As noticed earlier, Exhibit P1 order passed under Section 65 of
the Act, 1969 is for conducting inquiry regarding the irregularities of the
functioning of the society and there is nothing in the said order to show
that the same is against the appellant/writ petitioner. Therefore, we find
no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.
sd/-
K. NATARAJAN,
JUDGE.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
