LAWS(KER)-2010-3-5

STATE OF KERALA Vs. ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR

Decided On March 31, 2010
STATE OF KERALA Appellant
V/S
ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge vacating surcharge orders issued under S.68(2) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', against respondents 1 to 4 and the consequent orders issued by the Joint Registrar as violative of R.66(5) of the Cooperative Societies Rules, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'.

(2.) We have heard learned Government Pleader for the appellants and Adv. Sri. George Poonthottam for respondents 1 to 4.

(3.) An inspection was ordered by the Registrar into the affairs of the sixth respondent society consequent upon the report furnished by the Reserve Bank of India pointing out financial irregularities in the affairs of the society. In the report prepared by the Inspector of Cooperative Societies, respondents 1 to 4 were indicted for causing loss to the society. Based on the findings, the Registrar initiated proceedings under S.68(1) against respondents 1 to 4 and after giving notice and serving copy of the enquiry report, Ext. P8 order was issued under S.68(2) of the Act. Subsequent to the surcharge orders, respondents 1 to 4 were served with orders under R.44(1)(a) of the Rules disqualifying all of them from being members of the committee. After disqualification of respondents 1 to 4, the managing committee lost required number of members for sustenance and consequently the Joint Registrar issued Ext. P25 order appointing Administrator to take over the charge of the management of the society. Appeal filed by respondents 1 to 4 against surcharge orders issued vide Ext. P8 before the Government were rejected. Writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 4 challenging all these orders and since the basic order is Ext. P8, the learned Single Judge went into the legality of the said order and on finding it untenable by virtue of violation of R.66(5), he vacated the said order and consequently all follow up orders were quashed. It is against this judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State has filed this writ appeal.