MOHANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), wayanad, by Ext. Pl dated 30. 12. 2003, had directed the President and members of the Director Board of the Wayanad Primary Agricultural and Rural Development bank to show cause as to why action under S. 32 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative societies Act were not to be taken against them. A notice of hearing had also been offered. THE complaint is that in spite of satisfactory explanation being given, by Ext. P2 dated 27. 1. 2004, the committee had been superseded by Ext. P3 order passed on 12. 2. 2004 and because of external interference. This has been subjected to challenge in these proceedings.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is the President of the superseded director Board, submits that the steps taken were vitiated by mala fides, without authority of law and especially were not maintainable or sustainable. THE alternate remedy of appeal to the Government was not expeditious, especially taking notice of the circumstance that there was an ulterior attempt for arranging for sending a nominee of the choice of the Government to the ensuing election to the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural development Bank. THE surreptitious attempt was to see that the nominee of the ruling party was enabled to go over as the representative of the institution. This Court had not granted any interlocutory orders, but had held that the voting and contest of the additional 4th respondent and also the declaration of the results of the election will be subject to further orders to be passed in these proceedings.

(3.) THE new committee had assumed office only on 18. 5. 2003. THE petitioner submits that the show cause notice (Ext. Pl) positively indicated that none of the allegations could be connected with the new managing committee. When show cause notice had been received, the Committee was almost certain that there was an attempt for supersession and a Writ Petition had been filed as W. P. (C ). No. 3428 of 2004 and this Court had observed that there could have been any justification for the apprehension shown. But the worst fears had come true. It is pointed out that orders had come overlooking such observations.