IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 739 of 2010()
1. N.K.VARGHESE, PRESIDENT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMKUMAR (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :18/08/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No.739 OF 2010 & W.P.(C)No.14273 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of August 2010
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
Appellant is stated to be the elected President of Mananthavady
Farmers Service Co-operative Bank (for short ‘the Bank’).
2. The Joint Registrar (General), Wayanad issued Ext.P2 notice
under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969 calling
upon the members of the managing committee of the Bank to show cause
why action as provided under Section 32(1)(d) of the Act shall not be
initiated for the various alleged misdeeds enumerated therein.
3. The above notice was sought to be quashed by the appellant
before the learned Single Judge. It was further prayed that the Joint
Registrar be directed not to take any action against the managing
committee “without service of notice” and that the order, if any, that may
be passed by the said authority be kept in abeyance for a period of two
weeks from the date of service of that order.
4. On a motion made by the appellant, the learned Single Judge
considered the question whether there were any exceptional
circumstances to grant an interim order not to implement the order that
may be passed by the Joint Registrar pursuant to Ext.P2 notice. The
W.A.No.739 OF 2010 &
W.P.(C)No.14273 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
learned Judge, after considering the contentions of the appellant and the
respondent, answered the question in the negative. The above order is
under challenge in this appeal.
5. At the very outset, we may make it clear that we do not propose
to deal with any of the charges or allegations made by the Joint Registrar
against the appellant or the members of the managing committee in
Ext.P2 show cause notice for the reason that any such discussion may be
unwarranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly since, further action pursuant to the notice is still awaited.
Such a decision by the Joint Registrar is kept on hold apparently, for the
reason that this court has by its order dated May 4, 2010 in a connected
Writ Petition (W.P.No.14273/10) directed that supercession of the
committee, if any, proposed, be kept in abeyance. The said interim order
is being extended from time to time. The above writ petition was also
tagged on with this writ appeal, when its pendency was brought to our
notice and also since learned counsel for the parties agreed that the same
can also be heard along with this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned
order only on the ground that the learned Judge has touched upon the
merit of the case at more than one place in the impugned order. We find
W.A.No.739 OF 2010 &
W.P.(C)No.14273 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
considerable force in the above contention. It would have been
appropriate, if the learned Judge did not go into the merit or demerit of
the contentions raised by the appellant while seeking for an interim
order.
7. Anyhow, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the authority that may
consider further action pursuant to the notice issued under Section 32 of
the Act shall decide the matter untrammelled by any of the views or
opinions expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
Since the only issue involved is the tenability or otherwise of the charges
levelled against the managing committee and also the sustainability of the
proposed action under Section 32, we are of the view that it will be
appropriate if the authority which has issued the notice be given liberty to
take appropriate action in accordance with law.
8. It is the admitted position that the appellant as well as the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.14273/10 apart from the other members of
the committee have already responded to Section 32 notice and
submitted their respective replies to the same. In that view of the matter,
what remains is only consideration of the case put forward by these
persons before the authority concerned. In any view of the matter, the
W.A.No.739 OF 2010 &
W.P.(C)No.14273 OF 2010
:: 4 ::
prayer made by the appellant and the writ petitioner in these two cases to
quash the show cause notice cannot be entertained or sustained.
9. Therefore, the writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of
with a direction to the Joint Registrar (General), Wayanad to take a
decision in the matter pursuant to Section 32 notice issued already. The
Joint Registrar shall ensure that the appellant, the writ petitioner and all
other members of the committee are given sufficient opportunity to be
heard. A decision in the matter shall be taken in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. While taking a decision, the Joint
Registrar shall further ensure that he is not in any way influenced by any
of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
order dated 7/4/2010.
Writ appeal and writ petition are disposed of in the above terms.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
jes