JUDGMENT
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Petitioner is the President of the second respondent society. He seeks to challenge Ext.P13, which is an order issued in exercise of the powers under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The issue raised is that the petitioner was entitled to be heard before the issuance of an order in the nature of Ext.P13 in view of Rule 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). Sub-rule 5 of Rule 66 provides for a rule of hearing before the Registrar decides to issue orders. Rule 66 of the Rules is directly relatable to the proceedings under Sections 65 and 66 of the Act. This means that while the Registrar proceeds to issue directions as are contemplated under Section 66, the Society is entitled to be heard before any such order is issued. This does not necessarily mean that before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies takes a decision under Section 68(1) of the Act, the societies will have to be heard. In my considered view, if the contention of the petitioner is accepted as such he will have to be afforded an opportunity of hearing, firstly, before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies takes a decision to proceed under Section 68(1) and secondly, during the course of proceedings under Section 68(1) of the Act. This does not sound to be in tune with any settled principles of rule of hearing. That apart, initiation of proceedings under Section 68(1) of the Act is not one of the orders that are contemplated under Section 66. Obviously, therefore, Ext.P13 is not relatable to any decision taken under Section 66. In this view of the matter, the right of the petitioner to be heard before an order under Section 66 is passed cannot be accepted. The view that I take does not contradict the law laid down by this Court in Sudarsanan v. State, 1997 (1) KLT 957, which has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has yet another contention and it is that, the report on an enquiry under Section 66 itself is one that can be subjected to a statutory appeal. The impugned Ext.P13 is also one that can be appealed against. However, his grievance is that the petitioner is not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report and thereby he has been disabled from appropriately challenging the enquiry report as well as the impugned Ext.P13 before the statutory authority. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the petitioner had not placed any written request for the said copies. This stand is contradicted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Be that as it may, the learned Special Government Pleader states that during the course of proceedings pursuant to Ext.P13, yesterday, the petitioner has been instructed to receive the copy of the enquiry report from the Enquiry Officer and that the Enquiry Officer will give a certified copy of the report on 21.5.2005. In this view of the matter, I issue a direction that the petitioner will be issued with a certified copy of the enquiry report as stated above and he will be at liberty to pursue the statutory remedy before the competent authority and also seek any interlocutory order in accordance with law. Till such time, participation in any proceedings pursuant to Exts. P13 will not work to the prejudice of the petitioner. I record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the next sitting pursuant to Ext.P13 is on 30.5.2005.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
