AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent dated 07.12.2012, whereby the petitioner Bank is directed to deposit amounts that are required for the expenses of conducting the enquiry in respect of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, and for other consequential reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Second respondent filed Ext.P2 complaint before the Joint Registrar to remove 1225 members from the membership of the petitioner bank. According to the petitioner, some of them are enrolled about 50 years back, and some of them have signed in the bye-law, to register it. The 2nd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.19789 of 2012 seeking direction to consider Ext.P The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment, directing the 1st respondent to consider the petition in accordance with law. Subsequently, the Joint Registrar as per Ext.P6 directed the petitioner to remit the expenses for sending registered notices to 1225 members.

(3.) According to the petitioner, as per Sec. 27 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 [hereinafter called 'the Act, 1969'], general body is the final authority and as per Sec. 29(1), general body has to approve the budget. Without any approved budget or any provision in the budget, no money can be spend by the bank. Therefore, if any money is spend, the same will be objected in the statutory audit, and will be recovered from the managing committee. The Joint Registrar is exercising the power conferred on him/her under Rule 16(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 [hereinafter called 'the Rules, 1969']. Such power conferred can be exercised either suo motu or on the basis of a complaint filed by a third party. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the expenses have to be met from the exchequer or if it is on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent is vested with powers to demand the amount from the 2nd respondent. It is also stated that an amount of Rs. 31,250.00 was orally demanded by the 1st respondent to meet the expenses and also directed to render the services of two or three employees of the bank. According to the petitioner, even though petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 reply to Ext.P6 notice, the 1st respondent was not amenable to the request made by the petitioner.