This writ appeal assailed the Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition challenging an order directing an enquiry into a co-operative society. The Court held the Registrar's order under Section 66 was supervisory and lawful, finding no malafide, and dismissed the appeal.
The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 24TH ASWINA, 1942
W.A.No.1059 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.07.2020 IN WP(C) 14659/2020(F) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ADOOR N. JAYAPRASAD AGED 66 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, PRESIDENT, PATHANAPURAM BLOCK HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REGN. NO.Q.456, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM-691 305.
BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 103.
2 SINIYA I. JUNIOR INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), PUNALUR 691 305.
3 SINI S. AMBADY, BHARANIKKAVU, PUNALUR-691 305.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2020, THE COURT ON 16.10.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.1059 OF 2020 -2-
J U D G M E N T
Haripal, J.
Appellant assails the correctness of the judgment dated 28.07.2020 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 14659 of 2020 which was filed by himself as petitioner seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P1 order issued by the 1st respondent through which the 2nd respondent, Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies has been authorized to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the Pathanapuram Block Housing Co-operative Society No. Q456. Appellant is the President of the Society.
WA.No.1059 OF 2020 -3-
being paid for the fixed deposits in violation of the circulars of the Registrar, that repayment remittances made by the members are not being credited in the Federation, that an extension counter, depot and a conference hall were established without sanction of the Registrar. She had also made complaint against her proposed retrenchment. Finding that the allegations are serious in nature, the said order was passed by the 1st respondent. The contention of the appellant is that it is a politically motivated move, that under Ext. P2 the services of the 3rd respondent was terminated by the Society, that the said complaint is the off-shoot of her termination which was done on proved misconduct on her part who was a temporary collection agent of the Society. Referring to Ext. P3 it was pointed out that an outlet was started only on the strength of the orders of the 1st respondent.
WA.No.1059 OF 2020 -4-
interference, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act.
WA.No.1059 OF 2020 -5-
supra, has no application to the facts of this case since that was rendered in the backdrop of Section 65 of the Act. After hearing counsel on both sides we are unable to subscribe to the argument that the Registrar is not competent to issue an order like Ext. P1. On the face of the document it is certain that serious allegations regarding the running of the Society were made in the complaint, notwithstanding the question whether it was made by a former employee of the Society who was retrenched from its service. As noticed in the order, at the first blush, the allegations are serious. When such a complaint is made to a competent authority it is childish to contend that the authority should turn a blind eye, without taking any action at all. If only an enquiry is conducted on the periphery, as proposed to do through Ext. P1, it would come out that there is prima facie material, if any, in the allegations. These are checks and balances for the smooth running of an institution like the Society. After preliminary enquiry, if it is revealed that the complaint is baseless, motivated by malice or ill-will of a retrenched employee, it can be closed. On the other hand, if there is substance in the allegations, the Act provides for taking follow up action. We are afraid as to how inspection of records by a Junior
WA.No.1059 OF 2020 -6-
Inspector, that too under the orders of the Joint Registrar, can be described as an act by a stranger. Similarly Section 66 of the Act is supervisory in nature and the provision makes it clear that the Registrar is at liberty 'to supervise or cause to be supervised by a person authorized by him by general or special order in writing in this behalf, the working of every Society as frequently as he may consider necessary'. Anyhow any proceedings pursuant to an order under Section 66 of the Act can be done only following the procedures provided in Rule 66 of the Rules.
specific allegations against the functioning of the Society. There is absolutely nothing to say, at least at this stage, that such an order was passed with malafide intention, due to political considerations. Any such enquiry can be conducted only in accordance with the procedure mentioned in the Rules. We notice that a one month's time is stipulated for filing the report by the Inspector. Sub rule (3) of Rule 66 of the Rules makes it very clear that the time limit is peremptory. Therefore it is not necessary for this Court to say anything about the argument of the learned counsel that the 2nd respondent has not yet filed any report.
WA.No.1059 OF 2020 -7-
persuaded to find valid reasons to interfere with the judgment under
challenge. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL, JUDGE
Eb/25.08.2020
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition assailing the order for enquiry into the society's affairs should be allowed.
Whether the Registrar's order under Section 66 of the Co-operative Societies Act was passed with malafide intentions.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the single judge's dismissal of the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Melukkara Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Joint RegistrarDistinguished¶30
Melukkara Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar [2018 (2) KLT 640]
Adoor N. Jayaprasad
The Joint Registrar (General), Collectorate, Kollam
Siniya I.
Sini S. Ambady
C.T.Ravikumar
K.Haripal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
