SIDDHIKUL AKBAR; SAJI JOSEPH; K P MOHAMMED; P M ABDUL SALAM; C A MAKKAR; ASHA SATHYAN Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES; ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES; KUTTILANJI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 292; K E HASSAN; K M MOHAMMED; P G ANIMON; M A KAREEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P14 order passed by the Joint Registrar (General) exercising the power under Section 32 (1) of the Co-operative Societies Act 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In an earlier round of litigation when the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Joint Registrar superseding the Managing Committee by exercising similar powers as per order dated 27/07/2012 produced as Ext.P9, this Court had occasion to consider the factual situation involved in the matter and by judgment dated 23/03/2013 this Court had quashed the said impugned order dated 27/07/2012 without prejudice to the right of Registrar to take appropriate action following the prescribed procedure. Though several contentions were urged in W.P.C No.18016 of 2012 challenging Ext.P9 this Court observed that in regard to the findings of fact by the first respondent this Court cannot interfere and the allegation of bias was also found against the petitioners. However, this Court found that the impugned order was bad for non-compliance of Section 32(2) of the Act and hence the impugned order was quashed.

(2.) Pursuant to the above judgment which is produced as Ext.P10, the first respondent passed Ext.P14 order after complying with the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act which is under challenge. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that though Section 32(2) requires the Registrar to consult the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative union or the State Co-operative Union before passing an order under Section 32(2) of the Act, it is stated in the impugned order that consultation was made with the Kuttilanji Circle Co-operative Union and the Financing Bank and recommendation was given by the Circle Co-operative Union. There is no consultation as envisaged under Section 32(2) of the Act. It is contended that the consultation ought to be meaningful and purposeful after reference to the relevant facts involved in the matter and there has to be some discussion on merits on such consultation which is lacking in the case on hand. Reference is also made to judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and Another v. Justice R.A.Mehta (Retd.), 2013 3 SCC 1 and Justice Chandrashekaraiah Janekere C. Krishna and Others[(2013) 3 SCC 117], for the proposition that when a statute prescribes a consultation to give effect to the provisions of the statute, such consultation should be meaningful and after considering the entire matters including the opinion expressed during consultation, all materials received from the consultee should be verified, discussed and then only after complying with such procedure, the authority concerned can act in terms of the Statute.

(3.) Reference is made to paragraphs 137 and 138 of Chandrashekaraiah which reads as under: