BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23929 of 2011. The matter relates to proceedings under Sections 66 to 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. A preliminary enquiry was conducted into the functioning of the 4th respondent Co-operative Society and Ext.P2 findings were entered by the joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, wherein serious irregularities were alleged to be found in the running of the society. Based on the same, the Joint Registrar (Vigilance) of Co-operative Societies conducted a further enquiry and submitted Ext.P3 report to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. That was on 1-8-2007. The copy of the same was forwarded to the government as well. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Co-operation Department, by Ext.P4 dated 5-10-2007, directed the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to take appropriate action as warranted by law based on Ext.P3 report. Nothing happened for quite sometime thereafter. On 13-7-2011 by Ext.P1, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointed an Enquiry Officer to ascertain the loss caused to the Society on account of the irregularities in the running of the society and to fix the liability on the person concerned under Section 68 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The Enquiry Officer was directed to conduct the enquiry and to submit report within one month from the date of receipt of the said order. The Board of Directors of the Society filed W.P. (C)No. 23929 of 2011 Challenging Exts P1, P2 and P3 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner in the writ petition has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The first contention raised is that Ext.P1 has been issued not on the personal satisfaction of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, but on the dictates of the government by Ext.P4 order. The counsel for the appellant submits that such kind of action has been frowned upon by this court in two decisions i.e.

(3.) We have heard the counsel for the 6th respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader. Ext.P2 is the report in the preliminary enquiry conducted. The appellant has no case that the enquiry which resulted in Ext.P2 was conducted under dictates of the government. Pursuant to Ext.P2 the Registrar (Vigilance) of Co-operative Societies conducted another enquiry and submitted Ext.P3 report. The appellant has no case that Ext.P3 report dated 1-8-2007 was under the dictates of the government. A copy of Ext.P3 was forwarded to the government as well. On receipt of the same, on 5-10-2007, the government issued Ext.P4 communication to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies which reads thus: