{"id":143529,"date":"2007-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007"},"modified":"2014-09-17T12:27:35","modified_gmt":"2014-09-17T06:57:35","slug":"a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 25731 of 2006(L)\n\n\n1. A.K.MANI, PRESIDENT,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :15\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                S. SIRI JAGAN, J.\n\n                         -------------------------------\n\n                         W.P.(C)NO.25731 OF 2006\n\n                        ---------------------------------\n\n        DATED THIS THE 15th   DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2007\n\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Over the past two decades, the Co-operative sector in Kerala has<\/p>\n
been afflicted with the malady of over – politicisation to such an extent<\/p>\n
that,   a   tendency   is   widely   experienced   whereby   the   political   party<\/p>\n
which is in power in the State is constantly attempting to wrest control<\/p>\n
of societies which are administered by rival political parties.   It is seen<\/p>\n
that   as   soon   as   a   particular   political   party   comes   into   power   in   the<\/p>\n
State polity notices are being issued under the Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
Act   and   Rules   for   supersession   of   the   Board   of     management   of   the<\/p>\n
Society, so that the ruling party can take control of the administration<\/p>\n
of   the   society   through   an   administrator   or   administrative   committee<\/p>\n
appointed by them.   This infact is a malady which tends to affect the<\/p>\n
progress of the Co-operative movement in this State and also the very<\/p>\n
democratic fabric of a Co-operative Society.   The public are the really<\/p>\n
aggrieved persons when the political parties fight   with each other to<\/p>\n
wrest power and control of a Society for their political or other gains.<\/p>\n
This particular case is an example of such a tendency in this State.<\/p>\n
       2.      The   petitioner   is   the   President   of   the   Devikulam   Taluk<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
Plantation Workers Co-operative Credit Society registered under the<\/p>\n
Kerala Co-operative  Societies Act.   He is challenging Ext.P1 notice<\/p>\n
issued   to   him   under   Section   32(1)   of   the   Kerala   Co-operative<\/p>\n
Societies   Act   directing   the   President   of   the   Society   to   file   his<\/p>\n
explanations as to why proceedings under section 32 should not be<\/p>\n
taken   against   the   managing   committee   of   the   Society   for   the<\/p>\n
irregularities enumerated in the notice.            Although the petitioner had<\/p>\n
drafted Ext.P2 reply for filing, apprehending that the same would be<\/p>\n
a meaningless exercise in so far as Ext.P1 itself would amply prove<\/p>\n
that the  1st  respondent  has   already  taken   a  decision to   supersede<\/p>\n
the managing committee, he has filed this writ petition challenging<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 notice, without filing the same, the petitioner contends.<\/p>\n
       3.      Accepting  the   fact  that  Ext.P1  is  only a  notice  to  show<\/p>\n
cause, the  learned  counsel  for  the   petitioner   would  submit  that  in<\/p>\n
so   far   as   from   the   facts   disclosed,   it   is   very   evident   that   the<\/p>\n
intention   of   the   1st  respondent   is   to   pass   orders   of   supersession,<\/p>\n
whatever   be   the   reply   submitted   by  the   petitioner,   he   is   perfectly<\/p>\n
justified in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of<\/p>\n
the   Constitution   of   India,   challenging   Ext.P1   notice.     He   would<\/p>\n
submit   that   in   Ext.P1   itself,   the   1st  respondent   has   stated   that   he<\/p>\n
has   initiated   these   proceedings   only   on   the   basis   of   a   report<\/p>\n
obtained by him under Rule 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
Rules.     The   petitioner’s   contention   is   that   for   obtaining   a   report<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
under Section 66 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Rule 66 of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules prescribes certain procedure<\/p>\n
which are mandatory in nature and if that report is obtained without<\/p>\n
complying with the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 66., that<\/p>\n
report   cannot   be   the   basis   of   any   proceedings   under   Section   32.<\/p>\n
Reading  out  the  irregularities  narrated   in  Ext.P1,  he  would   submit<\/p>\n
that   the   same   itself   would   prove   the   malafide   nature   of   the<\/p>\n
proceedings   initiated   by   Ext.P1.     He   took   each     one   of   the<\/p>\n
irregularities  mentioned   therein   and   tried   to   convince  me   that   the<\/p>\n
same have no factual basis.  He would further say that the present<\/p>\n
managing   committee   which   took   charge   on   29.8.04   is   entitled   to<\/p>\n
continue in office till 18.8.09.   According to him the Society has no<\/p>\n
dues to any organisation or the Government.  The tentative profit of<\/p>\n
the Society for  the present year  is  Rs.34,00,000\/-.   He points out<\/p>\n
that the alleged irregularities in Ext.P1 themselves would show that<\/p>\n
they   are   not   irregularities   at   all,   but   action   taken   by   a   managing<\/p>\n
committee, which is interested in the welfare of the committee, for<\/p>\n
the   betterment   of   the   Society   itself.     He   particularly   points   out<\/p>\n
irregularities   4   and   5   and   those   mentioned   in   Ext.P1   which<\/p>\n
according to him is so flimsy and vague and in fact does  not spell<\/p>\n
out any irregularity on any factual basis.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.      The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the<\/p>\n
decision of this Court in Dr. Vijayalakshmi Kunjamma Vs. State<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
of   Kerala   and   others   (1978     KLT   62),  in   support   of   his<\/p>\n
contention that even against a notice, aggrieved person has invoked<\/p>\n
the   jurisdiction  of   this  Court   under   Article   226   in  proper   case   and<\/p>\n
according to him this is an eminently fit case for such interference.<\/p>\n
       5.     He   particularly   refers   to   the   insufficiency   of   the<\/p>\n
satisfaction   of   the   1st  respondent   against   any   irregularities<\/p>\n
committed   by   the   managing   committee   warranting   issuance   of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1   notice.       According   to   him   when   Ext.P1   itself   categorically<\/p>\n
stated that the satisfaction of the Joint Registrar   has been arrived<\/p>\n
at on the basis of a report  under Section 66,  unless that report is<\/p>\n
obtained   in   accordance   with   the   mandatory   provisions   prescribed<\/p>\n
under   Rule   66,   the   very   basis   of   Ext.P1   falls   down   and   therefore<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 is liable to be interfered with.   The contention is that under<\/p>\n
Rule   66,   an   order   authorizing   enquiry   under   Section   66   should<\/p>\n
contain 5  details mentioned in Sub rule  1 of  Rule  66.   Sub rule  2<\/p>\n
further mandates that the order  authorizing enquiry under Section<\/p>\n
66 has to be issued to the President or the Secretary of the Society<\/p>\n
concerned   by   registered   post   with   acknowledgment   due.     The<\/p>\n
petitioner categorically asserts that no such notice whatsoever has<\/p>\n
been served on the President or the Secretary of the Society at any<\/p>\n
time. In the above circumstances, according to the counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner,   the   1st  respondent   could   not   have   legally   come   to   a<\/p>\n
satisfaction   required  for  initiation   of  proceedings   under  Section   32<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
while   issuing   Ext.P1   notice   and   therefore   Ext.P1   is   unsustainable<\/p>\n
and liable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.     In this connection, he refers to the decision in  Ellakkal<\/p>\n
Service Co-operative Bank Vs. State  of Kerala  (1997(2) KLT<\/p>\n
85) wherein a single bench of this Court had categorically held that<\/p>\n
the provisions of Rule 66  is mandatory in nature. He also submits<\/p>\n
that   for   invoking   provisions   of   Section   32,   the   committee   of   the<\/p>\n
Society   should   have   been   guilty   of   any   of   the   four   irregularities<\/p>\n
mentioned   therein   and   according   to   him   Ext.P1   notice   would   not<\/p>\n
reveal that any of the four irregularities has been committed by the<\/p>\n
Committee headed by the petitioner. In this connection, the petition<\/p>\n
also refers to the decision in  Govindan Kutty Vs. Viyyur Service<\/p>\n
Co-op.bank (1990(1)KLT 513), Rajagopalan Nair Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Kerala   (1995   (2)   KLT   184),   Sudarsanan   Vs.   State   (1997(1)<\/p>\n
KLT   957).     On   the   above   grounds,   the   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   seeks   quashing   of   Ext.P1   as   arbitrary,   illegal   and<\/p>\n
unsustainable .\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       7.     A   counter   affidavit   has   been   filed   on   behalf   of   the   1st<\/p>\n
respondent   fully   justifying   the   issuance   of   Ext.P1   notice.     It   is<\/p>\n
submitted therein that the procedure contemplated in Rule 66  has<\/p>\n
been substantially complied with and therefore Ext.P1 notice issued<\/p>\n
on the basis of a report obtained under Section 66, fully complying<\/p>\n
with provisions of Rule 66  is perfectly valid and proper.   It is also<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
submitted that the writ petition is premature, in so far as Ext.P1 is<\/p>\n
only a show cause notice to which the petitioner can file his reply,<\/p>\n
which would be considered and then only orders passed. According<\/p>\n
to the learned Government pleader there is absolutely no basis for<\/p>\n
apprehension that the reply to be filed  by the petitioner would not<\/p>\n
be considered in the correct perspective.  In this respect in support<\/p>\n
of   the   contention   of   the   learned   Government   pleader   that   no   writ<\/p>\n
petition   would   lie   against   a   show   cause   notice,   the   following<\/p>\n
decisions   are   also   relied   upon,  Executive   Engineer   Bihar   State<\/p>\n
Housing   Board   Vs.   Ramesh   Kumar   Singh   and   others   (1996<\/p>\n
(1)   SCC   327),   Chanan   Singh   Vs.   Registrar,   Co-op.Societies,<\/p>\n
Punjab and others (1976 SCC 361), State of U.P. and another<\/p>\n
Vs.   Anil   Kumar   Ramesh   Chandra   Glass   Works   and   another<\/p>\n
(2005   (11)   SCC   451).                   On   these   grounds,   the   learned<\/p>\n
Government pleader would want me to sustain Ext.P1 and dismiss<\/p>\n
the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        8.      The   learned   counsel   for   the   additional   3rd  respondent<\/p>\n
would try to argue that the irregularities mentioned in Ext.P1 have<\/p>\n
actually been committed by the managing committee headed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner. He would submit that in respect of the resolution adopted<\/p>\n
by the general body to raise credit limit from 10,000\/- to 15,000\/-<\/p>\n
he had filed a complaint before the Registrar which is still pending, I<\/p>\n
do   not   think   that   in   so   far   as   the   complaint   of   the   petitioner   still<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
remains as complaint without any orders thereon, I can take note of<\/p>\n
such a contention to decide this case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       9.        I have considered the rival contentions in detail.  Since I<\/p>\n
am particularly impressed with the contention of the petitioner that<\/p>\n
the   report   relied   upon   by   the   1st  respondent   for   issue   of   Ext.P1<\/p>\n
notice under Section 32 is not one validly obtained complying with<\/p>\n
the provisions of Rule 66,  I shall first deal with that question.  Sub<\/p>\n
rules 1 and 2 of Rule 66 read thus:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   “66.  Procedure for the conduct of inquiry<\/p>\n
         and   inspection:-   (1)(i)   An   order,   authorising<\/p>\n
         inquiry   under   Section   65   or   inspection   under<\/p>\n
         Section   66   shall   among   other   things,   contain   the<\/p>\n
         following:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                   (a)      the   name   of   the   society   whose   affairs<\/p>\n
         are to be inquired into or whose books of accounts<\/p>\n
         are to be inspected:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                    (b)      the   name   of   the   person   authorised   to\n\n         conduct the inquiry or inspection;\n\n\n                    )        in specific point or points on which the\n\n<\/pre>\n
         inquiry   or   inspection   is   to   be   made,   the   period<\/p>\n
         within   which   the   inquiry   or   inspection   is   to   be<\/p>\n
         completed and report submitted to the Registrar;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 (d)       costs of inquiry or inspection;\n\n\n                    (e)      any other  matter relating or pertaining\n\n             to the inquiry or inspection.\n\n\n                    (2)      A   copy   of   every   order   authorising\n\n<\/pre>\n
             inquiry   under   Section   65   or   inspection   under<\/p>\n
             section   66   shall   be   issued   to   the   President   or   the<\/p>\n
             Secretary   of   the   Society   concerned   by   registered<\/p>\n
             post   with   acknowledgment   due.     A   copy   of   the<\/p>\n
             order   shall   also   be   made   available   to   the   Central<\/p>\n
             Society or societies, to which the society in respect<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
         of which the order is issued, is affiliated.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       10.    The   fact   that   Rule   66   stipulates   that   an   order<\/p>\n
authorizing   inspection under Section 66 shall contain the 5 details<\/p>\n
mentioned therein would go to show that the same is not an empty<\/p>\n
formality.     This   is   with   the   purpose   to   enable   the   managing<\/p>\n
committee of the Society to be put on notice regarding the matters<\/p>\n
in   respect   of   which   they   have   to   provide   the   authorised   officer<\/p>\n
information during the inspection. So also, the very wording, of Sub<\/p>\n
rule 2 would make it abundantly clear that the procedure of sending<\/p>\n
copy of the order  authorizing the enquiry under  Section 66  to the<\/p>\n
President or the Secretary of the Society is mandatory in nature.  It<\/p>\n
specifically states that, that order shall be issued to the President or<\/p>\n
the   Secretary   of   the   Society   concerned   by   registered   post   with<\/p>\n
acknowledgment   due.     It   is   settled   law   that   when   a   statute<\/p>\n
prescribes   that   a   particular   thing   should   be   done   in   particular<\/p>\n
manner,   it   should   be   done   in   that   manner   only   and   in   no   other<\/p>\n
manner.        [See  Thodupuzha   Taluk   Co-op.  Marketing   Society<\/p>\n
Vs.   Joint   Registrar   of   Co-op.   Societies   (2002   (1)   KLT   638)]<\/p>\n
When Sub rule 2 of Rule 66 prescribes the mode of issuing copy of<\/p>\n
the order authorizing inspection under Section 66 by registered post<\/p>\n
acknowledgment   due,   unless   the   order   is   so   issued   by   registered<\/p>\n
post acknowledgment due, it cannot be held that even if the order is<\/p>\n
issued in some other manner, the same would be in due compliance<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
with   the   provisions   of   Rule   66.     The   mandatory   nature   of   the<\/p>\n
provisions of Rule 66 has been considered by Sri. J.B. Koshy,J in the<\/p>\n
decision   in  Elakkal   Service   Co-operative   Bank’s   case.      In<\/p>\n
paragraph   8   of   the   said   decision,   the   learned   Judge   had   held   as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                        “First   question   is   whether   the<\/p>\n
                procedure   prescribed   under   R.66   are<\/p>\n
                mandatory or mere directory.   Sub-r 91)<\/p>\n
                of   R.66   says   that   an   order   authorizing<\/p>\n
                inquiry   under   S.65   shall   among   other<\/p>\n
                things   contain   the   following.     The   word<\/p>\n
                used is ‘shall’.  Therefore, it is contended<\/p>\n
                by   the   petitioners   that   question   of<\/p>\n
                prejudice   or   non-prejudice   cannot   be<\/p>\n
                looked into because the word ‘shall’ used<\/p>\n
                indicates   that   there   are   mandatory<\/p>\n
                procedural   rules.     The   name   of   the<\/p>\n
                inquiry   officer   should   be   intimated   is   a<\/p>\n
                mandatory   requirement   of   the   statute.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                Whether any prejudice at all was caused<\/p>\n
                is   entirely   a   different   matter.     Joint<\/p>\n
                Registrar who is a creature of the statute<\/p>\n
                cannot   say   that   such   a   rule   is<\/p>\n
                unnecessary   as   informing   the   name   of<\/p>\n
                the   person  who   is  authorised  to   conduct<\/p>\n
                the   inquiry   makes   no   different   and   no<\/p>\n
                prejudice   will   be   caused.     There   is   clear<\/p>\n
                violation   of   sub-r   (1)   (b)   of   R.66.     It   is<\/p>\n
                specifically mentioned in R.66(1) (b) that<\/p>\n
                the   name   of   the   person   authorised   to<\/p>\n
                conduct   the   inquiry   shall   be   informed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                According   to   me,   this   is   a   mandatory<\/p>\n
                provision.     Whether   that   provision   is<\/p>\n
                unnecessary   or   whether   that   provision<\/p>\n
                should   have   been   deleted   or   not,   is   a<\/p>\n
                question before me.  So long as that rule<\/p>\n
                stands,   Joint   Registrar   should   have<\/p>\n
                complied with the same.   For any reason<\/p>\n
                if Joint Registrar was unable to inform the<\/p>\n
                name   question   of   substantial   compliance<\/p>\n
                could   have   been  considered.     But,   in   no<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
                   such   circumstances,   Joint   Registrar   can<\/p>\n
                   say  that  such a   rule   is   not   necessary  as<\/p>\n
                   no purpose will be served by mentioning<\/p>\n
                   the   name.     Admittedly,   R.66(1)(d)   was<\/p>\n
                   not   complied   with.     But,   with   regard   to<\/p>\n
                   the   contention   that   the   notice   was   not<\/p>\n
                   served           by         registered           post<\/p>\n
                   acknowledgment   due   as   provided   under<\/p>\n
                   R.66(2).     It   is   true   that   there   is   non-<\/p>\n
                   compliance   of   the   above   rule   which   is<\/p>\n
                   mandatory.   Notice was sent by ordinary<\/p>\n
                   post only. S.104 of the Act also provides<\/p>\n
                   that   such   notice   shall   be   served   by<\/p>\n
                   registered   post.     I   cannot   understand<\/p>\n
                   why notice in this case was not served by<\/p>\n
                   Joint   Registrar   as   provided   under   S.104<\/p>\n
                   or R.66(2).  However, since the petitioner<\/p>\n
                   accepted notice and replied the same on<\/p>\n
                   merits,   on   that   ground   alone   enquiry<\/p>\n
                   cannot   be   set   aside   as   no   prejudice   is<\/p>\n
                   caused   by   non-observance   of   the   above<\/p>\n
                   procedure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         11.      I am in full agreement with the view expressed by the<\/p>\n
learned Judge as above.   I also hold that the provisions of Rule 66<\/p>\n
particularly, Sub rule 2 is mandatory in nature.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         12.      The   learned   Government   pleader   appearing   for   the   1st<\/p>\n
respondent   would   point   out   that   in   paragraph   3   of   the   counter<\/p>\n
affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st   respondent.   It has been stated<\/p>\n
thus:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                       “3.  As to the averments in paragraph 3 of<\/p>\n
                the writ petition that, procedure contemplated in<\/p>\n
                Rule 66 was not complied with for conducting an<\/p>\n
                enquiry   under   Section   66,   it   is   submitted   that<\/p>\n
                the   2nd  respondent   has   authorised   the   Adimaly<\/p>\n
                Unit   Inspector   to   conduct   an   enquiry   vide<\/p>\n
                proceedings   No.G.496\/06   dated   28.8.2006.     In<\/p>\n
                compliance   of   Rule   66   of   the   K.C.S.   Rules,<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
             petitioner   Society   was   informed   about   the<\/p>\n
             enquiry.     The   enquiry   was   conducted   on<\/p>\n
             28.8.2006   and   29.8.2006   in   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
             society, and the report was filed.  No procedural<\/p>\n
             irregularities   occurred   in   this   regard.     The<\/p>\n
             findings   were   not   a   figment   of   imagination   of<\/p>\n
             this respondent as raised by the petitioner.   On<\/p>\n
             the   basis   of   Sec.66   enquiry   report   only   Ext.P1<\/p>\n
             notice is issued.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
She   submits   that   since   in   compliance   with   Rule   66   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
Society   was   informed   about   the   enquiry,   there   is   substantial<\/p>\n
compliance of the provisions of Sub rule 2 of Rule 66.  Not only am<\/p>\n
I not convinced about compliance of Rule 66 by the 1st respondent,<\/p>\n
I   am   also   far   from   being   convinced   that   any   intimation   has   been<\/p>\n
issued  at  all to  the  President  or   the  Secretary   of the  Society. The<\/p>\n
sentence “in compliance of Rule  66 of Kerala Co-operative  Service<\/p>\n
Rules,   petitioner-Society   was   informed   about   the   enquiry”   in<\/p>\n
paragraph 3  of the counter  affidavit is as vague  as vague  can be.<\/p>\n
The   1st  respondent   does   not   say   how   the   Society   was   informed<\/p>\n
about the enquiry, he does not say when the Society was informed<\/p>\n
about the enquiry, he does not say to whom that information was<\/p>\n
conveyed;   and   does   not   say   by   what   communication   the   Society<\/p>\n
was   informed   about   the   enquiry.   As   such   by   the   counter   affidavit<\/p>\n
itself   the   1st  respondent   has   amply   proved   that   the   provisions   of<\/p>\n
Rule   66   has   been   blatantly   violated   by   the   1st  respondent   while<\/p>\n
ordering an inspection  under Section  66. If at all there  is such an<\/p>\n
order,     I   am   constrained   to   say   that   in   spite   of   filing   a   counter<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
affidavit, the  1st  respondent  has  not  found  it  necessary  to support<\/p>\n
the   same   with   copies   of   documents   in   support   of   the   contentions<\/p>\n
therein,   like   the   order   authorizing   enquiry   under   Section   66,   the<\/p>\n
copy   of   the   letter   issued   to   the   President   or   Secretary   forwarding<\/p>\n
copy   of   the   order   authorizing   enquiry   under   Section   66,   receipt<\/p>\n
evidencing   service   of   the   order   on   the   Society,   or   any   other<\/p>\n
communication what so ever  in this regard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       13.    The learned Government pleader would submit that for<\/p>\n
a valid initiation of proceedings under Section 32 it is not necessary<\/p>\n
that there should be a Section 66 report at all and what is necessary<\/p>\n
to invoke the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 32 is only<\/p>\n
the   satisfaction   of   the   registrar   after   an   enquiry   by   himself   or<\/p>\n
through his subordinates or on a report of the financing bank or the<\/p>\n
Vigilance   and   Anti-Corruption   Bureau   of   the   Government   or   the<\/p>\n
Vigilance Officer or otherwise that the committee of the Society has<\/p>\n
committed   any   of   the   four   irregularities   mentioned   in   Section   32.<\/p>\n
According   to   her,   Ext.P1   would   prima   facie   discloses   such   a<\/p>\n
satisfaction by the Registrar and therefore evenif it is assumed that<\/p>\n
the   report   under   Section   66   has   not   been   validly   obtained   that<\/p>\n
would not in any way initiate Ext.P1 notice.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       14.    I   have   no   doubt   that   for   initiating   proceedings   under<\/p>\n
Section   32,   the   decision   of   the   registrar   as   contemplated   under<\/p>\n
Section 32 need not necessarily be on the basis of a report under<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                          13<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 66.  Certainly a reading of Section 32 would show that other<\/p>\n
materials   mentioned   in  Section   32   would   also   can  be   the   basis   of<\/p>\n
the satisfaction contemplated under Section 32.  But since in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
notice,   the   1st  respondent   himself,   categorically   states   that   his<\/p>\n
satisfaction about the irregularities mentioned in Ext.P1 is based on<\/p>\n
a   report   under   Section   66   itself.     That   being   so,   unless   the   1st<\/p>\n
respondent satisfies me that the report under Section 66 has been<\/p>\n
obtained   validly   and   in   compliance   with   the   procedure   prescribed<\/p>\n
under Rule  66,  I would have  no hesitation to hold that the Ext.P1<\/p>\n
notice   has   not   been   issued   validly.     As   I   have   held   earlier,   the<\/p>\n
learned Government pleader was not able to satisfy me that Section<\/p>\n
66  report  has  been  obtained    after  complying with  the  mandatory<\/p>\n
requirements of Rule 66.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       15.    In this connection it is worthwhile to extract a passage<\/p>\n
from the decision of a Single judge of this Court in  Sudarsanan’s<\/p>\n
Case  supra, paragraph 13 of which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 “13.   Coming   to   the   facts   of   the   case,   the<\/p>\n
         impugned   order   Ext.P8   sets   out   the   main<\/p>\n
         irregularities   and   states   that   on   the   basis   of   the<\/p>\n
         reports   submitted   under   S.66   of   the   Act,   the<\/p>\n
         Registrar   is   convinced   that   action   under   S.   32<\/p>\n
         should   be   taken   to   remove   the   committee.     The<\/p>\n
         Joint   Registrar   did   not   independently   consider   the<\/p>\n
         explanation   furnished   by   the   petitioners.<\/p>\n
         Nowherein   the   order,   it   is   seen,   that   the   Joint<\/p>\n
         Registrar has discussed the alleged irregularities in<\/p>\n
         reference   to   the   explanation   furnished   by   the<\/p>\n
         petitioner.  On the contrary, the Joint Registrar was<\/p>\n
         proceeding on the basis that he intends to confirm<\/p>\n
         the   recommendations   of   the   Assistant   Registrar.<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                        14<\/span><\/p>\n
        This, in my view, is a clear abdication of the power<\/p>\n
        conferred under S.32 of the Act.  Besides the Joint<\/p>\n
        Registrar   has   failed   to   come   to   his   independent<\/p>\n
        satisfaction on the alleged irregularities.   The Joint<\/p>\n
        Registrar had failed to see that he was not sitting in<\/p>\n
        appeal   or   for   considering   whether   the   decision<\/p>\n
        taken by the Assistant Registrar in superseding the<\/p>\n
        society   is   to   be   confirmed   or   not.     The   Joint<\/p>\n
        Registrar should have independently considered the<\/p>\n
        charges  levelled  in  the  show  cause  notice  and the<\/p>\n
        reply   furnished   by   the   petitioners.     In  Jose<\/p>\n
        Kuttiyani   Vs.   Registrar   of   Co-operative<\/p>\n
        Societies (AIR 1982 Ker. 12) a Division Bench of<\/p>\n
        this   Court   held   that   Registrar   does   not   appear   to<\/p>\n
        have   weighed   the   facts   independently.     The<\/p>\n
        Division Bench further held that the Registrar must<\/p>\n
        be   satisfied   that   the   conditions   precedent   for   the<\/p>\n
        exercise   of   the   power   of   supersession   are   in<\/p>\n
        existence or not.  No doubt the satisfaction may be<\/p>\n
        subjective,   but   it   shall   not   be   arbitrary.     If   the<\/p>\n
        contention   is   that   the   Registrar   never   applied   his<\/p>\n
        mind   and   therefore,   he   could   not   have   been<\/p>\n
        satisfied, the court can enter into that question, the<\/p>\n
        ingredient   of   satisfaction   being   the   condition<\/p>\n
        precedent to the exercise of power.  In the decision<\/p>\n
        of   the   Supreme   Court   in  Joint   Registrar   of   Co-<\/p>\n
        operative   Societies,   Madras   and   Ors.   Vs.   P.S.<\/p>\n
        Rajagopal  Naidu and  Ors. (AIR 1970 SC 992)<\/p>\n
        referred above, the Supreme  Court held that even<\/p>\n
        though   the   opinion   of   the   Registrar   is   purely   a<\/p>\n
        subjective   process,   there  must   be   cogent   material<\/p>\n
        on which the Registrar has to form his opinion that<\/p>\n
        the society was not functioning properly in order to<\/p>\n
        sustain   the   subsequent   supersession   of   the<\/p>\n
        committee   after   considering   its   representation   on<\/p>\n
        that ground.  The requisite opinion has indisputably<\/p>\n
        to be formed honestly and after applying his mind<\/p>\n
        by   the   Registrar   to   the   relevant   materials   before<\/p>\n
        him  the  only  condition  precedent   for   taking  action<\/p>\n
        is   that   the   Registrar   must   consult   the   financing<\/p>\n
        bank.”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
It must be noted here that this decision itself is based on an earlier<\/p>\n
Division Bench decision.   In this case except quoting the Assistant<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                          15<\/span><\/p>\n
Registrar’s   report   under   Section   66,   which   itself   has   not   been<\/p>\n
obtained validly there is nothing to show that before issuing Ext.P1,<\/p>\n
the Joint Registrar has not even applied his mind to the same, which<\/p>\n
is obvious from Ext.P1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       16.     Coming   to   the   contention   of   the   learned   Government<\/p>\n
pleader,   regarding   the   maintainability   of   the   writ   petition,   on   the<\/p>\n
ground that a show cause notice cannot be the subject matter of a<\/p>\n
challenge in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India,   I   am   inclined   to   hold   that   the   petitioner   has   made   out<\/p>\n
sufficient   grounds   for   interference   at   the   stage   of   notice   itself<\/p>\n
because of the conduct of the 1st  respondent himself.   When it has<\/p>\n
been pointed out to me and I have been convinced about the fact<\/p>\n
that the issuance of Ext.P1 itself is without the required satisfaction<\/p>\n
of the 1st respondent as provided under Section 32, I am inclined to<\/p>\n
hold   that   the   very   initiation   of   the   proceedings   itself   is   bad   and<\/p>\n
violation   of   the   Kerala   Co-operative   societies   Act   and   Rules<\/p>\n
thereunder.  This is all the more so since the power of supersession<\/p>\n
should be invoked only in exceptional and rare cases. The rule that<\/p>\n
a show cause notice cannot be subject to a challenge under Article<\/p>\n
226 of the Constitution of India is not an absolute rule without any<\/p>\n
exceptions.     This   Court   can   certainly   exercise   its   discretionary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction   in   appropriate   cases   where   this   Court   is   satisfied   that<\/p>\n
while   issuing   a   show   cause   notice   a     violation   of   law   has   been<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06                         16<\/span><\/p>\n
perpetrated   by   statutory   authority     in   violation   of   the   mandatory<\/p>\n
provisions of the rules. The hands of this Court cannot be held to be<\/p>\n
tied   down   on   the   ground   that   what   is   challenged   is   only   a   show<\/p>\n
cause notice in such cases.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       17.    The   petitioner  also  contends  that  the  four  irregularities<\/p>\n
mentioned in Section 32(1) is not present in the case of the Society.<\/p>\n
Going   by   the   irregularities   mentioned   in   Ext.P1   notice,   although   I<\/p>\n
am   prima   facie   impressed   with   the   contention   of   the   petitioner   in<\/p>\n
this regard, I am not going in detail into that question since  I am<\/p>\n
satisfied   that   Ext.P1   is   liable   to   be   quashed   on   the   other   ground<\/p>\n
itself.  The result of the above discussion is that Ext.P1 notice issued<\/p>\n
to the managing committee of the Society headed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
is patently illegal and unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.   I<\/p>\n
do so.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       The writ petition is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
Acd<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.25731\/06    17<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 25731 of 2006(L) 1. A.K.MANI, PRESIDENT, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE … Respondent 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-143529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-17T06:57:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-17T06:57:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3948,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007\",\"name\":\"A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-17T06:57:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-17T06:57:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-17T06:57:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007"},"wordCount":3948,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007","name":"A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 15 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-17T06:57:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-mani-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-15-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.K.Mani vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 15 March, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=143529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}