ABDUL KHADER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing Ext. P16 order passed by the first respondent, District Collector, Palakkad, by which the petitioners were directed to produce certain documents of the second respondent Society mentioned in that order. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1,3 and 4, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 10.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is the former Secretary of the second respondent Society and the second petitioner is the former President of the Society. The respondents 5 to 10 are the former members of the Board of Directors of the Society. After the expiry of the term of office of the Board of Directors, the third respondent appointed an Administrator for the Society. Alleging that the first petitioner did not hand over the registers and properties of the Society even after issuing notice to him by the Administrator, the third respondent, Deputy Director, Department of Dairy Development, Palakkad, applied to the first respondent for securing the records and properties of the Society under S. 34 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short, the Act). Acting on the application submitted by the third respondent, the first respondent issued Ext. P1 order dated 04.09.2003 directing the fourth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Alathur, to enter and search the place where the records and properties of the Society were kept or believed to be kept and seize them and to hand over the records and properties so seized to the Administrator of the Society. Accordingly, the fourth respondent and his party reached the office of the Society at 11 a.m. on 23.9.2003 and broke open the lock with the help of others and entered into that office and seized 310 items of records and properties described on pages 1 to 24 of the inventory prepared and handed over them to the Administrator. The fourth respondent sent a copy of the list of the records and properties so seized to the first respondent along with his Ext. P2 letter. Thereafter, Ext. P3 letter dated 28.11.2003 had been issued by the Secretary-in-Charge of the Society to the fourth respondent stating that some other records and properties were not available in the office of the Society and requesting to seize them from the first petitioner and the former members of the Board of Directors. Subsequently, Ext. P4 letter dated 24.12.2003 also had been issued to the fourth respondent for that purpose. In Ext. P4, some more documents were also mentioned as missing from the office of the Society. Subsequently, an elected committee had assumed the administration of the Society. Thereafter, as per Ext. P6 dated 25.02.2005, the President of the Society applied to the first respondent under S. 34 of the Act for issuing direction to the fourth respondent to seize certain documents named in that application from the petitioners. Some of the documents stated to have been missing from the office of the Society in Exts. P3 and P4 were not mentioned in Ext. P6 as missing. As per Ext. P 12 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6432 of 2006, the first respondent was directed to consider Ext. P6 etc. and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the first respondent passed Ext. P16 order dated 01.03.2007 holding that the petitioners were responsible for the safe custody of the missing records and directing them to produce those records. Also stated in Ext. P16 that if the petitioners fail to produce the documents, action would be taken against them under the provisions of the Co-operative Laws for destroying the records. Exts. P1 and PI 6 are illegal and unsustainable. In these circumstances, the petitioners were compelled to file this Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel further submits.

(3.) It is the specific case of the petitioners that none of the documents directed to be produced are with them. They had explained this fact in their Exts. P8 and P9 replies to the notice issued by the Secretary of the Society. Ext. P2 shows that an inventory having pages 1 to 24 naming items 1 to 310 seized from the office of the Society had been prepared by the fourth respondent. These records and properties noted as items 1 to 310 in the inventory had been seized after searching the office of the Society. Thereafter, by Ext. P3 letter, the Secretary-in-Charge of the Society requested the fourth respondent to take steps forgetting certain documents named in that letter. Subsequently, Ext. P4 letter was also given to the fourth respondent for the purpose in which some more documents were also mentioned. When Ext. P6 application was given to the first respondent, some of the documents that found a place in Exts. P3 and P4 did not find a place in it. How could the Society secure those documents which were noted in Exts. P3 and P4 and not noted in Ext. P6 No answer is forthcoming. This Court does not propose to elaborate on this matter. This is a matter to be considered by a competent authority in a competent proceeding.