OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA v. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA MARANALLOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T 1172 MARANALLOOR, KOOVALASSERY P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695512 BY ADV D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 2 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695014 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) O/O ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MINI CIVIL STATION, 3RD FLOOR, KATTAKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695543 OTHER PRESENT: SR GP SRI T K VIPINDAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMIT RAWAL & C.S. SUDHA, JJ. ====================================== W.A.No.1499 of 2023 ======================================= Dated this the 05th day of January, 2024 JUDGMENT Amit Rawal , J . Notice under Section 68(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act issued by the Registrar was laid to challenge before the Single Bench on behalf of the Society on the premise that without having any material with regard to the alleged ambiguities or discrepancies as noticed in sub-section (1), enquiry as contemplated under the afore-mentioned provisions cannot be initiated. The State opposed the afore-mentioned prayer and raised the plea of writ being premature, in view of the fact that there had already been an enquiry under Section 66 of the Co-operative Societies Act (Ext.P6) and on that basis enquiry as contemplated under Section 68(1) of the Act was initiated by issuing show-cause notice.

2. Learned Single Bench noticing the contentions of the respective parties and found favour with the objections W.A.No.1499 of 2023 -: 2 :- raised by the State Counsel, dismissed the writ petition in limine.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no such material as tried to be pointed out by the State by relying upon Ext.P6 report. Purported enquiry regarding the loss caused to the Society gave cause to Registrar to initiate the enquiry under Section 68(1) and thus Registrar did not have the jurisdiction to take steps as contemplated under the afore-said provision.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and appraised the paper book.

5. The operative part of Ext.P6 report reads as follows:- “A copy of the Minutes of the Administrative Committee Meeting held on 12.07.2017 has also been produced, which enclosed as Exhibit XX. On being examined the audit certificates of the Society for the financial years in success (2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19), the Society has impeded with decrease in the capital funds, which is owing to the reason of improper transaction of the Society. For filling up the Post of Attender, the Society invited applications through advertisement conducted a written test, and the first rank holder in the test Smt. Lekha was appointed in the post of Attender, who, in turn, for her own personal reason applied for leave with the Administrative Committee, who granted her leave on loss of pay. Due to the said reason Smt. Lekha's probation period had to be in newspapers, W.A.No.1499 of 2023 -: 3 :- extended. During the period of her leave, the 2nd rank holder in the test Sri. Pradeep was appointed in the Attender Post on leave vacancy in accordance with the decision of the Administrative Committee. Appointing a person on leave vacancy is against the Rules. The Petitioner on 28.01.2015 sent a Lawyer Notice to the Society against the irregularities being taken place in the affairs of the Society, and in reply of Point No 11 thereof, the Society replied that Smt. Lekha was appointed in the Attender Post against the vacancy fallen vacant in the Attendee's post consequent upon the termination of Pradeep. On examination of the Minutes Book and the reply letter sent to the Neyyattinkara Assistant Registrar in reply to the Complaint filed by the Petitioner to the Office of the above Assistant Registrar, and the Statement given on behalf of the Society during the time of inspection, there appears to be some mismatches here and there in the whole affairs of the Society. Copies of the Reply to the Lawyer Notice, Complaint addressed to the Assistant Registrar and the Society's reply to the Assistant Registrar, are enclosed herewith and marked them collectively as Exhibit XXI. Disbursement of loans without getting the sub conditions approved by the Joint Registrar (General), and running of M.D.S are against the Circular issued by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies and against the Co-operative Laws. If the statements of Sri. Prabhakaran Nair and Sasidharan are to be considered, who have been claimed to be the Participants in the meeting of the Administrative Committee held on 12.07.2013 as per the Minutes of the Meeting, which is contrary to the actual facts, in such a situation, the memberships of the present President of the Society Sri. Surendran Nair, Sri. Nesan Nadar and Smt. Sharika S. Nair, are against the Rules. As per Rule 54 of the Co-operative Laws, without taking prior permission, the Society has built a counter and a cabin, for which the approval was taken only on 05.04.2017. As per the Co-operative Laws, when money is spent from own funds, prior permission needs to be obtained from the Joint Registrar (General), which norm / procedure has been violated by Administrative Committee of the Society.” W.A.No.1499 of 2023 -: 4 :-

6. On the basis of the afore-mentioned observations, notice dated 19th June, 2023 (Ext.P10) has been served upon the Society regarding conduct of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer to assess the quantum of financial loss. The operative part of the notice (Ext.P10) reads as follows:- “ORDER In the matter of economic irregularities took place in the Maranalloor Co-operative Society Limited No.T-1172, an enquiry under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Act has been completed as discussed under reference (2). Based on the Report, and in order to find out the exact quantum of the financial loss suffered to the Society, and to find out who are responsible for such loss, it is decided to conduct an enquiry under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Act. Hence, Smt. D.S. Divya is appointed as the Enquiry Officer, Kattakkada Unit Inspector of the office of the Kattakkada Assistant Registrar (General) to conduct the enquiry and to submit a Report by following the procedures prescribed for such an enquiry. She is required to complete the enquiry within 4 months from the date of this Order. The expenses if any, shall be determined and paid on completion of the enquiry. It is ordered accordingly.”

7. The contention of the counsel is that it is an order and therefore holding of the enquiry would be a farcical exercise as the Registrar would be holding the enquiry as an eyewash and with pre-determination. We are of the view that the language of the notice do not indicate such apprehension. It is just a notice calling upon the appellant W.A.No.1499 of 2023 -: 5 :- to submit reply and participate in the enquiry, It cannot be construed to be beyond. In our view, the apprehension is far-fetched. We do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order of the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition in limine holding it to be premature. The writ appeal sans merit, accordingly dismissed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- C.S. SUDHA JUDGE