A IBRAHIM KUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, which I propose to allow, underscores the need of the administrator to be aware of the new frontiers of natural justice, now more than ever before, since on the one hand a welfare-oriented, activist government does, and has necessarily to exercise powers affecting the civil rights of the citizen in a plurality of ways, and on the other, our democratic Constitution entitles every member of the community to expect observance of the rule of law which implies the essential norms of administrative propriety summed up in the expressive, though hackneyed, phrase natural justice.

(2.) THE facts, relevant to explain the issues raised in the present petition, are few. A co-operative society whose affairs were committed to the management of a board, was faring ill and so the Deputy Registrar, after a preliminary probe, submitted a report which revealed several, serious irregularities in the functioning of the society. Alerted thus, the Joint Registrar, who has statutory responsibilities of supervisory action, proceeded to supersede the Board under Section 42 of the travancore-Cochin Co-operative Societies Act. In response to his notice (Ext. P1)to the affected party, the Board, an explanation was submitted refusing the charges seriatim (Ext. P2) which, however, did not satisfy the authority and he therefore, passed the order Ext. P3. This order is impugned in the writ petition. It bodily reproduces the irregularities set out in Ext. P1, the 'show cause' notice, and runs on: "the explanation filed by the President on behalf of the committee to the notice that as first paper above is found to be not at all satisfactory. The explanation on the various points are either false or unreasonable. From the above facts it is clear that the committee of the Society has been, and is, mismanaging the affairs of the Society. Further, I am convinced that the present committee is not functioning properly and that any attempt to set right matters with the present committee in office, will do no good. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Trivendrum have recommended to supersede the present committee at an early date. In the circumstances do hereby order under Section 49 (1) of the T. C. Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 (Act X of 1952) that the committee of the Palode Service Co-operative Society Ltd. , No. 792 be superseded for a period of six months from the date of this order. " (The mistakes are seen in the Exhibits marked ). Athough the facts set out in Ext. P1 are controverted in Ext. P2 no further enquiry is seen conducted nor additional material collected and put to the delinquent board. The 'item by item' consideration of the charges and the indication of the conclusion on each are absent. Nor are any reasons given why the charges are held proved and the explanation unacceptable. The Officer merelv dismisses the board's pleas on the various points by four indifferent, indolent and unconvincing words 'either false or unreasonable'. Which are false and why? Which unreasonable and how? Such an unspeaking order is clearly insufficient when we see serious accusations made in Ext. P1 against presumably responsible persons. The graver the charges the greater the circumspection and to act quickly is not to act carelessly. What is more, there is a dark reference to the Deputy Registrar having recommended supersession. Therefore, the authority which decides must consider on the merits and not merely act on recommendations of subordinates; more serious is the violation when it is asserted by the petitioner that a copy of this report has not been furnished to the Board and there is no reference to it in ext. P1 (show cause notice ).

(3.) ANYWAY, the aggrieved petitioner appealed to the Government, through advocate under Section 50 of the Act whereupon notice (Ext. P. 4) was given to the advocate, that his appeal had been posted for hearing by the concerned minister on 11-12-1968 at 11 a. m. However, the advocate sent in a written request dated 11-12-1968 (Ext. P 6) couched in the following words: "since I am laid up I am unable to appear and argue the appeal. Hence it is prayed that an adjournment be given. " one of the members of the Society, anxious to save the institution from the harmful grip of the delinquent Board, chose to petition Government to implead and hear him through Advocate. This request was allowed but the appellant's prayer for adjournment was rejected. Eventually, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 16-12-1968 (Ext. P7) which I may usefully read here: