RAJEEVAN Vs. SUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ Appeals are filed by the fourth respondent and respondents 1 and 2 respectively in Writ Petition No. 28258/2011, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge in that Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 in these appeals, challenging the proposed action of the appellants in W.A. No. 2137/12 in superseding the managing committee of the ADAT Farmers' Service Co-operative Bank, under S. 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During the pendency of the Writ Petition, Ext. P13 order under S. 32 of the Act was served on respondents 1 to 3. Thereafter, they amended the Writ Petition, incorporating a challenge against Ext. P13 order also. The primary contention of respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition was that Ext. P13 order was passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of S. 32(1) & (2) of the Act, stipulating an opportunity to the managing committee to state their objections against the proposal to supersede and consultation with the Circle Co-operative Union and the Financing Bank. The appellants in these appeals took the stand that the appellants in W.A. No. 2137/12 had, by giving reasons for the same, exercised its discretion under S. 32(3) of the Act, to dispense with the opportunity to the respondents 1 to 3 to state their objections and therefore, Ext. P13 order is proper and valid. That contention did not find favour with the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge held that Ext. P13 order has been passed in violation of the provisions of S. 32(l) and (2) of the Act and consequently, quashed Ext. P13, directing that the managing committee be permitted to continue in office to discharge its functions. But, the learned single Judge left it open to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to take fresh action in accordance with S. 32(1) of the Act, after complying with the prescribed procedure. That judgment is under challenge in W.A. Nos. 2131 and 2137 of 2012. After the judgment of the learned single Judge, there was a dispute as to whether the Administrator had taken charge or not, pursuant to Ext. P13 order before the judgment was pronounced. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2725/13, who is the Branch Manager of one of the branches of the Co-operative Bank in question, was caught in the crossfire, attracting the wrath of the members of the Managing Committee and he has filed the Writ Petition, seeking police protection to discharge his duties as Branch Manager, alleging that the members of the managing committee had assaulted him and prevented him from discharging his duties.

(2.) We shall first consider the Writ Appeals.

(3.) The learned Government pleader, on behalf of the appellant in W.A. No. 2137/12 would contend that the Joint Registrar has correctly exercised his powers under S. 32(3) of the Act. According to him, the Joint Registrar has given cogent and convincing reasons in Ext. P13 order itself for dispensing with the opportunity to the members of the managing committee to state their objections and the same being his subjective satisfaction, cannot be a subject matter of judicial review. It is further submitted that the words "not reasonably practicable" occurring in S. 32(3) of the Act is not merely the physical impracticability, but also the logical improbability. The contention is that the charges levelled against the members of the Managing Committee are very serious in nature, involving loss of crores of rupees to the society and if the Joint Registrar has to take time for giving an opportunity to the committee to state its objections, that would seriously affect the very existence of the society insofar as the managing committee would continue to mismanage the society and is also likely to manipulate records to defeat the action. Therefore, the Joint Registrar has rightly dispensed with the opportunity to the committee to state its objections and the learned single Judge has erred himself in holding that the dispensation with the opportunity is unsustainable. He also specifically points out that in Ext. P13 order, the Joint Registrar has specifically found that that the managing committee members had obstructed the enquiry officer, who was deputed by the Joint Registrar to conduct the enquiry and the documents necessary for the enquiry were, therefore, not made available to the enquiry officer also. It is also submitted that the managing committee members prevented the officers from handing over the records to the enquiry officer. That is a very serious situation, which warrants dispensing with the opportunity to the committee to state its objections, is the contention raised.