G. Jesudasan, President vs Joint Registrar of Co-operative

P.N. Ravindran, J.—Heard Sri. George Poonthottam, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. A.G. Aneetha, Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

The petitioner is the President of the Board of Directors of the Sasthamcotta Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. An enquiry u/s 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1948 was ordered into the functioning of the said society by the Registrar. After the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted Ext.P4 report. There upon the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Ext.P5 notice dated 24.4.2008 u/s 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, calling upon the members of the Managing Committee to show cause why the Managing Committee should not be superseded. After they were afforded an opportunity to state their case, the Managing Committee was superceded by Ext.P8 order dated 12.6.2008. An Administrator was appointed and he took charge on 13.6.2008. Ext.P8 was challenged by seven members of the Board of Directors in W.P(C) No. 18335 of 2008. By Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 4.8.2008, Ext.P8 order of supercession was quashed on the ground that there was no proper consultation with Circle Co-operative Union and the financing bank. By Ext.P1 this Court also reserved liberty with the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to hear the petitioners de novo and take such appropriate action as may be found necessary in accordance with law.

The administration of the Society was thereafter entrusted with the Managing Committee on 6.8.2008. Thereafter Ext.P2 notice was issued to the Managing Committee, to which they submitted Ext.P3 reply. Thereafter by Ext.P9 order passed on 17.10.2008 the Managing Committee was again superceded. The Administrator appointed as per Ext.P9 took charge on 23.10.2008. Ext.P9 was challenged by the members of the Board of Directors in W.P(C) No. 31536 of 2008. By Ext.P10 judgment delivered on 12.3.2009, the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P9 on the ground that the hearing which lead to Ext.P9 was held by another officer and not by the officer who passed Ext.P9. The operative portion of Ext.P9 judgment reads as follows:

For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is only to succeed on the sole ground that the impugned decision has been rendered by an officer other than the one who heard the committee of the society of which the petitioner was the President. No other grounds are dealt with in this Writ Petition and it is clarified that this Court has not gone into merits or demerits of the allegations that led to the issuance of the impugned order or the objections stated by the committee against which those proceedings are initiated. All such issues are left open.

Ext.P9 In with opportunity to the first respondent to proceed the result, this Writ Petition is allowed quashing with hearing de novo following a notice that may be issued to those entitled to be heard and the proceedings shall commence from the stage at which the parties stood on the date of issuance of notice that led to hearing of the petitioner by Sri. Omanakuttan. No costs.

The respondent thereafter issued Ext.P11 notice dated 21.4.2009 informing the petitioner and other members of the Managing Committee that the hearing will be held in the matter on 6.5.2009. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P11 on various grounds. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the only relief that the petitioner now seeks is an order staying the order to be passed u/s 32 (1) of the Act for a period of two weeks so as to enable the petitioner and other members to challenge it in this Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on Ext.P6 judgment of this Court that in the absence of a finding in Ext.P4 report there are major defects in functioning of the society and also no recommendation to supercede the Managing Committee, no action can be taken u/s 32(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the term of the committee will come to an end on 31.5.2009 and therefore there is no reason why the committee should be superceded. Per contra the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contends that no special circumstances exist warranting the grant of the relief prayed for by the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned Counsel on either side. What the petitioner seeks is a stay of the order that would be passed pursuant to Ext.P11 notice for a period of two weeks in order to enable him to challenge it in this Court. This in my opinion, was a relief available to the petitioner when Ext.P10 judgment was passed on 12.3.2009. The petitioner is admittedly a party to Ext.P10 judgment. From Ext.P10 judgment it is evident that this Court did not deem it fit and proper to stay the revised order that would be passed pursuant to the directions issued therein. Therefore the petitioner who did not seek and was not granted the relief in the earlier round of litigation which led to Ext.P10 judgment cannot pray for or be granted the said relief in this writ petition. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed leaving open the contentions of the petitioner on the merits.