GOPINATHAN NAIR Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Secretary or Mulakulam Panchayat Service Cooperative Society, Ltd., No. 209. The affairs of the Society are vested in a Managing Committee consisting of 11 members There was some feud among the members of the Managing Committee. A complaint was filed by the petitioner against one P I Mathew in the Munsiff Magistrate's Court. This has resulted in bitter animosity between the petitioner and the said Mathew. It is averred in the petition that a complaint was filed against the petitioner by the said Mathew to wreak vengeance against him before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The complaint contained allegations of misappropriation of funds. The Deputy Registrar visited the society on 12-11-1973 and made physical verification of the cash. He addressed the President of the Society to tender explanation, after such inspection, pointing out the irregularities discovered by him. The Managing Committee sought explanation from the petitioner. He submitted a detailed explanation, Ext. P1. This explanation was accepted by the Managing Committee and Ext. P2 resolution was passed by majority vote accepting the petitioner's explanation.

(2.) While the matters stood thus, the President of the Society received a letter Ext. P3 dated 30-4-1975 from the 1st respondent Registrar of Co. operative Societies, Trivandrum, with two enclosures, Exts. P4 and P5. Ext. P3 directs action to be taken against the petitioner. The enclosures are two copies of letters from the Secretary to the Government, to the first respondent. The President of the Society declined to take action. Ext. P6 is the letter by the President of the Society. Ext. P6 also was approved by the majority of the members of the Managing Committee, which resulted in Ext. P7 resolution. The petitioner has come to this Court with two prayers: (1) to quash Exts. P3, P4 and P5 and (2) quash all proceedings taken against him in crime No. 9 of 1974 initiated by the 3rd respondent, the Director of Vigilance Investigation, Trivandrum.

(3.) The society, I am told, was superseded and administrators were appointed for the governance of the Society. Thereafter a new committee came into existence. The 4th respondent is the Society. Respondents 5 and 6 are members of the Committee who are opposed to the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 oppose the application and this opposition is supported by respondents 5 and 6