VAZHAPILLY RURAL HOUSING SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Co-operative society. Their grievance in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order of the Government. Audit of the accounts of the Society was conducted for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 (although 2000-2001 also mentioned in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's grievance is only in respect of the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000). For the same, the petitioner is liable to pay audit fees as provided under Rule 65(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The petitioner's contention is that at the relevant time, the maximum audit fee payable for the year 1998-99 was only Rs. 5000/- and for the year 1999-2000 was only Rs. 10,000/-. But from the petitioner the respondents collected Rs. 10000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. Therefore, the petitioner sought refund of the excess audit fee of Rs. 10,000/- collected from the petitioner. The petitioner originally approached this Court and the Government was directed to consider the same. The Government considered the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioner by Ext.P4 order. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order by filing W.P. (C) No.26867/03, in which, by Ext.P5 judgment, Ext.P4 was quashed and the Government was directed to reconsider the matter. The Government reconsidered the matter and passed Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund of the excess audit fees, the Government went further and directed the Society to take appropriate disciplinary action against the Chief Executive of the Society for not fulfilling the statutory responsibility imposed on him as per Rule 64(6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The petitioner submits that Rule 64(6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules was inserted in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules only with effect from 2.5.2000 and therefore, the same cannot apply to the years 1998-1999 and 1999- 2000. Apart from that, he also submits that the question of compliance with rule 64(6) of the Co-operative Societies Rules was not a subject matter for consideration of the Government, while passing Ext.P6 order and neither the petitioner nor the Chief Executive of the Society was put on notice regarding the

(2.) NO counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this writ petition. But, the learned Government Pleader argues in support of Ext.P6 order.

(3.) AS far as the direction to the petitioner Society to initiate disciplinary action against the Chief Executive of the Society is concerned, I am of opinion that the Government was not in seisin of that issue at the time of passing Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order has been expressly stated to be passed pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment. In Ext.P5 judgment, what this Court directed the Government is to consider the question of refund of excess audit fee collected from the petitioner. Therefore, at that time, the petitioner was not put on notice regarding the violation of Rule 64(6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules with opportunity to show cause against any proposed action in respect of the same and therefore, the direction in Ext.P6 in respect thereof is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice. Apart from that, Rule 64 (6) was introduced in the rules only with effect from 2.5.2000 and it cannot actually refer to the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000.