Disposed

The Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.E59 v. the Jointe Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Kerala HC21 Dec 2018WP(C)/2791/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an inquiry order under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It directed the 1st respondent Registrar to conduct a fresh hearing on the Society's submitted explanations within two weeks and pass reasoned orders.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh hearing on explanations and pass reasoned orders within two weeks.

The Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.E59 Vs the… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2791 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.E59 MANEED P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 664, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE JOINTE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),

¶11

OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KAKKANAD, ERANKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030.

¶12

2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), (THE INQUIRY OFFICER APPOINTED TO CONDUCT THE INQUIRY),OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERANKULAM DISTRICT - 686 661.

¶13

SRI. MOHAMMED HASHIM, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 2791 of 2018

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner, a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder, represented by its Secretary, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 29.12.2017, whereby the 2^nd respondent Assistant Registrar has been appointed an inquiry officer for conducting inquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 into the working of the petitioner Society for the matters enumerated in Ext.P1. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that there exists no circumstances warranting an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act, as against the petitioner Society, and the inquiry initiated vide Ext.P1 is tainted with malafides and bad in law. The further relief sought for is a declaration that the order issued as per Ext.P1 is without satisfying the requisites of law for an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act and therefore bad in law.

¶19

On 12.04.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed the following order;

¶20

WP(C).No. 2791 of 2018

¶21

-3-

¶22

“It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that enquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 initiated against the petitioner Society by Exhibit P1 order is complete. The petitioner Society and the members of its Managing Committee will be provided with a copy of the report. It is directed that any further action will be taken only after putting the Society and the members of its Managing Committee on notice and after hearing each and every contentions advanced. Though the proceedings can go on in view of the intervening court vacation, final decision, if any, adverse to the interest of the petitioner Society shall not be implemented for a period of two months.”

¶23

The interim order granted on 12.04.2018 was

¶24

extended from time to time.

¶25

A statement dated 09.02.2018 has been filed by

¶26

the 1^st respondent, which was followed by an additional statement dated 08.03.2018. Along with the statement, the 1^st respondent has produced as Ext.R1(a) petition dated 20.10.2017 submitted by 47 members of the petitioner Society pointing out various irregularities and corruption in the functioning of the Society. Along with a memo filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader dated 30.08.2018,

¶27

WP(C).No. 2791 of 2018

¶28

-4-

¶29

the report dated 31.03.2018 of the inquiry officer, under Section 65 of the Act, is placed on record.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶31

also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶32

The pleadings and materials on record would show that the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of the 1^st respondent Joint Registrar, whereby an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act is ordered in the working of the Society. In the statement filed by the 1^st respondent, one of the contentions raised is that Ext.P1 order, whereby statutory inquiry under Section 65 is ordered in the working of the Society, cannot be challenged by the petitioner Society represented by its Secretary, as the Society has no locus standi to challenge that order.

¶33

It is pertinent to note that in Ext.R1(a) petition

¶34

submitted by 47 members of the petitioner Society, serious irregularities and misappropriation in the Society, especially

¶35

WP(C).No. 2791 of 2018

¶36

-5-

¶37

serious irregularities committed by the President of the Society, are pointed out. Such irregularities includes misuse of funds and deposits by the President and others; irregularity and corruption in the loans availed by the President, his relatives and friends on insufficient security of properties owned by the President and his family members; etc. In Ext.P2 Audit report, serious irregularities are pointed out, including illegal depositing of funds with Arakkunnam Rubber Marketing Society (the President of the petitioner Society himself was the President of that Society); illegal of depositing funds with Meenachil Rubber Marketing Society; etc.

¶38

The aforesaid issue need not be gone into in this writ petition, since, based on Ext.P1 order, the inquiry officer conducted an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act and the report dated 31.03.2018 of the inquiry officer is placed on record, along with the memo filed by the learned Special Government Pleader. By order dated 12.04.2018, this Court has recorded the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that inquiry under Section 65 of the Act

¶39

WP(C).No. 2791 of 2018

¶40

-6-

¶41

is complete and the petitioner Society and the members of the Managing Committee will be provided with a copy of the report. This Court has ordered that, any further action will be taken only after putting the Society and the members of its Managing Committee on notice and after hearing each and every contentions advanced. Though the proceedings can go on, it was ordered that, in view of the intervening court vacation, final decision, if any, adverse to the interest of the petitioner Society shall not be implemented for a period of two months.

¶42

The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that, in terms of the order of this Court dated 12.04.2018, the petitioner Society and the members of the Managing Committee submitted their explanation and they were also heard by the 1^st respondent Joint Registrar and orders are awaited.

¶43

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that, since orders are yet to be passed, it is for the 1^st respondent Joint Registrar to conduct a fresh hearing on the explanations

¶44

WP(C).No. 2791 of 2018

¶45

-7-

¶46

offered by the petitioner Society and the members of the

¶47

existing Managing Committee, with notice to them, and pass appropriate orders in the matter.

¶48

All legal and factual contentions raised by them shall be dealt with appropriately by the 1^st respondent, by

¶49

passing a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶50

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

bpr

WP(C).No. 2791 of 2018

¶55

-8-

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.C.R.P(2)7124/17 DATED 29.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AUDIT REPORT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.02.2018 EVIDENCING THE CLOSING OF THE LOAN. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.02.2018 EVIDENCING THE CLOSING OF THE ACCOUNT.

¶59

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶60

ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION. ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE AND THE INTERIM REPORT DATED 29.01.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 06.02.2018 WITH ITS ENCLOSURES. ANNEXURE R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.63/06. ANNEXURE R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AUDIT NOTE FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 IN RESPECT OF THE MEENACHIL RUBBER MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY SHOWING THE LOSS. ANNEXURE R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 IN RESPECT OF THE ARAKKUNNAM RUBBER MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY SHOWING THE LOSS. ANNEXURE R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED BYE-LAWS CLAUSE 50(D) OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY.

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

P.A. TO JUDGE

The Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.E59 v. the Jointe Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.E59 v. the Jointe Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju v. Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Preetha.E.D Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

Manoj Kumar K. Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Mammed Koya K.T. Vs the Secretary

K.K. Abdul Gafoor Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Jabeena Faizal Vs the General Manager, Ernakulam District Co-Operative Bank