Sidhikul Akber and Others vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Ernakulam, Kochi. Pin-682 016 and Others

K. Surendra Mohan, J.—The petitioners, the President and members of the Board of Directors of the sixth respondent Bank, have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P12 orders passed u/s 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (''the Act'' for short) superseding the committee. According to the petitioners, action was initiated against them for appointments made allegedly in violation of the directions issued by the first respondent. They had challenged the show cause notice issued to them in a writ petition, WP(C). No. 12395/2012. In the said writ petition, on 4.6.2012 this Court had issued an order permitting the petitioners to submit their explanation to the show cause notice. According to the petitioners, the first respondent had already decided to supersede the committee. Though the petitioners submitted Ext.P11 explanation to the show cause notice dated 1.6.2012, Ext.P12 order has been issued on 6.6.2012 superseding the committee. According to the learned Sr.counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar, who appears for the petitioners, the issue of Ext.P12 in such haste only strengthens the contention of the petitioners that the first respondent had approached the entire issue with a closed mind. According to the learned counsel, there was no reason for the extreme urgency with which Ext.P12 has been issued. It is also contended that the various contentions raised in Ext.P11 explanation submitted by the petitioners have not been referred to or considered before deciding to supersede the committee as per Ext.P12. For the above reasons, it is contended that Ext.P12 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Adv. D. Somasundaram, the Spl.Govt.Pleader, who appears for the respondents stoutly opposes the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners. According to the Spl.Govt.Pleader, action had been initiated against the petitioners for violation of the specific directions issued by the first respondent directing them to refrain from making appointments. However, the petitioners had proceeded to make the appointments, necessitating the action that has been initiated against them. For the above reasons it is contended that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with Ext.P5. I have considered the rival contentions advanced before me anxiously.

I am not entering into the correctness of the grounds on which the order u/s 32(1) of the Act has been issued by the first respondent. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Sr.counsel, who appears for the petitioners, Ext.P10 interim order was issued by this Court on 4.6.2012. Even before that, Ext.P11 explanation had been submitted by the petitioners. However, on 6.6.2012, Ext.P12 has been issued superseding the committee. The reason for the extreme haste in which the proceedings have been initiated concluded is not forthcoming. I notice that between Exts.P10 and P12, there has been only one intervening day. Ext.P12 order also does not show a proper consideration of the contentions set out in Ext.P11 explanation. The manner in which Ext.P12 has been issued only adds fuel to the allegation of the petitioners that the first respondent had proceeded the matter with a foreclosed mind. Viewed in the above perspective, I am of the opinion that, the matter would have to be considered by the first respondent afresh and a fresh decision taken, after considering the explanation in Ext.P11. For the above reasons, Ext.P12 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the explanation of the petitioners, Ext.P11, afresh and to pass fresh orders in the matter, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioners also an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners may also file any additional statement that may be necessary. However, the matter need not be prolonged indefinitely for complying with the above conditions and it shall be open to the first respondent to fix an outer time limit within which such statements would have to be submitted by all concerned. It is also directed that the petitioners shall be put back in management of the affairs of the sixth respondent Bank forthwith.