Kerala High Court
K.K. Ramachandra Panicker vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2026
2026:KER:2499
WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 23RD POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 K.K. RAMACHANDRA PANICKER
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, ‘RESHMA', PULLAD PO,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689548
2 K. LATHIKA BHAI
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O. K.R. SURENDRANATH, ‘MANESHA', CHAMBAKKARAPO,
KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686540
3 BALAMMAL P.S
AGED 69 YEARS
W/O. P. VISWANATHAN, LAKSHMI VIHAR, PODIYADIPO,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689110
4 VALSA MATHEW
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O. LALI CHACKO T. THOMAS, THELAPPURATH HOUSE, MARAMON
PO, MARAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689540
BY ADV SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
2026:KER:2499
WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 2
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695014
3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PATHANAMTHITTA - ., PIN - 689645
4 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVALLA - ., PIN - 689101
5 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MALAPPALLY - ., PIN - 689585
6 THE THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3260
HEAD OFFICE, PB NO. 4, ERAVIPEROOR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT - REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER., PIN -
689542
7 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3260, HEAD
OFFICE, PB NO. 4, ERAVIPEROOR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT - REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT/CHAIRMAN., PIN
- 689542
8 K.JAYAVARMA
VARIPPAMKOTTAKOYICKAL, EZHUMATTOOR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT - ., PIN - 689586
9 KEEZHVAYIPUR SIVARAJAN NAIR
THEKKUMTHALA HOUSE, KEEZHVAYIPUR, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689587
0 REJI THOMAS
KADOOR HOUSE, KALLOOPPARA PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689583
11 MANOJ MATHEW
ANGADIYIL HOUSE, THELLIYOOR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689544
12 GEORGE KURUVILLA
CHANKARAMANGALATHU, THELLIYIL, ERAVIPEROOR PO,
2026:KER:2499
WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 3
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689542
13 BIJU OOMEN
MURINGASSERIYIL HOUSE, ERAVIPEROOR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689542
14 ANNAPOORNA DEVI
MALAYILLETHU HOUSE, KADAPARA PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689547
15 SHAM KURUVILLA
CHELLETHU JOY VILLA, KUMBANAD PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689547
16 SOSAMMA THOMAS
PALANIKKUNTHIL HOUSE, UNNAKKAVU PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689674
17 ALEYAMMA VARGHESE
VALIYATHANNICKAL HOUSE, ERAVIPEROOR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT -, PIN - 689674
18 V.A. CHERIYAN
VAZHAYIL HOUSE, CHENGANNUR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 68959
19 A.R. CHANDRASEKHARA PANICKER
LAKSHMI NIVAS, KURAVANKUZHI PO, PULLAD, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT -, PIN - 689548
0 M.P. HIRAN
(FORMERLY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), THIRUVALLA,
THE CONVENER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF
THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3260), THE
JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT - ., PIN - 689645
21 M.B. GOPALAKRISHNAN
MUKKUZHIKKAL (ASWATHY), EZHUMATTOOR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT - ., PIN - 689586
22 E.T. RAVI
EDATHARA (MEMANA), VENNIKULAM PO, PATHANAMTHITTA
2026:KER:2499
WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 4
DISTRICT, PIN - 689544
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SHRI.ANSHIN K.K
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. V.K SUNIL (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.09.2025 AND HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.01.2026, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:2499
WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 5
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P7 enquiry report under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operatie Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 1969 Act), Ext.P9 (a) order issued by the competent authority under sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the 1969 Act, and Ext.P10 which is the consequent show cause notice issued to the 1 st petitioner by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the competent authority.
2. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents would submit that, going by the law laid down by the Full Bench of this court in Kudayathoor Service Co-
operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) 2022 (3) KLT 222 (F.B.) the petitioner cannot challenge the proceedings at this stage and it is for the petitioners to take all contentions before the competent authority, if and when a show cause notice is issued to the petitioners under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the 1969 Act.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned senior Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, I am of the view that there is considerable merit in the 2026:KER:2499 WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 6 contentions taken by the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents that the petitioners cannot at this stage challenge the enquiry report prepared under the provisions of Section 65 of the 1969 Act and also the order directing the initiation of proceedings under Section 68 of the 1969 Act. In paragraph 17 of the judgment in Kudayathoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) reads thus:-
"17. As noted, Section 66 of the Act empowers the Registrar, on his own motion or on the application of a creditor of a society, to inspect or direct any person authorised by him by order in writing in its behalf to inspect the books of the society. Similarly, Section 65 empowers the Registrar, on his own motion or on any of the circumstances mentioned in clauses (b) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 65, to order an inquiry by himself or by a person authorised by an order in writing into the constitution, working and financial condition of the society, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so. Section 65 also empowers the Registrar to supersede the Managing Committee of a society in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 32, if any major defect in the constitution or working or financial condition of the society is noticed in an inquiry under Section 65(1). Section 68 provides that if in the course of an inquiry or inspection it is found that any person who is or was entrusted 2026:KER:2499 WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 7 with any organisation or management of co-operative societies or who is or has at any time been an officer or an employee of the society has made any payment contrary to the Act or the Rules or the bye-laws or has caused to any loss or damage in the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence or mismanagement or has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society or has destroyed or caused the destruction of the records, the Registrar may, on his own motion, or on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor, inquire himself or direct any person authorised by him by an order in writing in this behalf, to inquire into the conduct of such person. Section 68(2) provides that where an inquiry is made under sub-section (1), the Registrar may, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard, by order in writing, require him to repay or restore the money or other property or any part thereof, with interest at such rate or to pay contribution and costs or compensation to such extent, as the Registrar may consider just and equitable. The aforesaid provisions would indicate that the Registrar would be competent to supersede the Managing Committee of the society under Section 32 of the Act or surcharge the members of the Managing Committee or others under Section 2026:KER:2499 WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 8 68 based on the report of the inquiry under Section 65 or inspection under Section 66. No doubt, supersession of the Managing Committee of a society and surcharge of the members of the Managing Committee and others are drastic measures involving adverse civil consequence as far as the parties are concerned which include infraction of property, personal rights and material deprivation. But it is seen that an opportunity of hearing is provided for under Section 32 of the Act before the Managing Committee of a society is superseded under that provision except in exceptional circumstances referred to therein. Similarly, a further inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Act is provided for, based on the report of inquiry under Section 65 or inspection under Section 66 and an opportunity of hearing is required to be given in terms of Section 68(2) before a person is called upon to repay or restore the money or other property as found recoverable from him. Rule 66(7)
(ii) also provides that on getting the report of inquiry or inspection, as the case may be, the Registrar shall give the person or persons concerned an opportunity of hearing before issuing an order of surcharge. In other words, the Act contemplates an opportunity of hearing to all affected persons before action is taken on the report of inquiry or inspection, whether it be under Section 32 or under 2026:KER:2499 WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 9 Section 68, except in situations provided for in Section 32 where the Registrar is empowered to dispense with the opportunity of hearing. Section 32 empowers the Registrar to dispense with the opportunity of hearing before a committee is superseded only in cases where the Registrar is of the opinion that it is not reasonably practical to do so. The relevant provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 32 reads thus:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) it shall not be necessary to give an opportunity to the committee to state its objections and to consult the Unions and financing banks, in cases where the Registrar is of the opinion that it is not reasonably practicable to do so, subject however to the condition that in such cases the period of supersession shall generally be for six months and in case a new committee, cannot be constituted or enter upon office in accordance with the bye-laws of the society within the period of supersession the period may be extended for a further period not exceeding six months-
(a) in the case of a co-operative society only after consulting the Circle Co-operative Union concerned; and
(b) in the case of an Apex Society or a Central Society only after consulting the State Co-operative Union."
The exceptional situation provided for in sub-section (3) of Section 32 being one of the exceptions to the rule audi alteram partem, the scheme of the Act can certainly be understood as one providing for an opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned before an action is taken on the report of inquiry or inspection. True, the statute does not expressly provide for an opportunity of hearing to parties on the acceptability of the report of inquiry or inspection before the 2026:KER:2499 WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 10 opportunity of hearing provided for under Sections 32 and 68. As noted, while the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the party affected before an order is made by an administrative or a quasi-judicial or judicial authority cannot be dispensed with, there can be exceptions to the said requirement and the extent and its application cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. In other words, the question whether the principle has to be applied and if so, to what extent and at what stage it is to be done etc. are matters to be decided bearing in mind the express language and the basic scheme of the provision conferring the power, the nature of power conferred, the purpose for which the power is conferred, and the final effect of the exercise of that power on the rights of the person affected. As noted, insofar as proceedings under Sections 32 and 68 are contemplated and provided for under the Act based on the report of inquiry or inspection, it is obligatory on the part of the Registrar initiating steps under Section 32 or Section 68, to give copy of the report, on the basis of which the action is proposed, to the parties concerned. This proposition has not been disputed by the learned State Attorney, although there was dispute between the counsel appearing for the parties on either side as to whether such reports are in reality being served to the parties concerned. Similarly, the fact that there is no provision in the Act and Rules obligating the Registrar under Sections 32 and 68 to provide copy of report of inquiry or inspection is also not disputed by the learned State Attorney. The only argument put forward by the State Attorney in this context is Rule 24 of the Rules which enables the parties concerned to obtain copies of such reports. Rule 24 of the Rules reads thus:
"24. Right to obtain documents from Registrar's Office:-- (1) Any person may on payment of fees at the rates as may be prescribed by the Registrar obtain a certified copy of any 2026:KER:2499 WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 11 public document not being a document privileged under the Indian Evidence Act, filed in the office of the Registrar, provided that no such person shall be entitled to the supply of such copy unless he satisfies the Registrar that he requires it to seek redress in any matter in which he is aggrieved or for any other lawful purpose.
(2) The application fee shall be paid in the shape of Court Fee Stamps.
(3) Along with every application for copies, copying sheets of the prescribed value for preparing the copies shall be supplied.
Note:- Each statement, account, report, petition, order or the like shall be treated as a separate document and shall be written on separate copying stamp paper.
(4) Copies must be transcribed only on the front page of every copying paper."
A reading of the extracted Rule would only show that any person may on payment of fees at the rates as may be prescribed, obtain a certified copy of any public document filed in the office of the Registrar. Even the said provision clarifies that no such person shall be entitled to the supply of such copies unless he satisfies the Registrar that he requires it to seek redress in any matter in which he is aggrieved or for any other lawful purpose. In other words, the Rule does not confer an absolute right on an applicant under the same to claim copies of the documents filed in the office of the Registrar. The said Rule, according to us, does not satisfy the statutory obligation on the part of the Registrar under the Act to provide a copy of the report of inquiry or inspection before initiating action under Section 32 or Section 68, as the case may be, on the basis of the findings in the report of inquiry or inspection. Needless to say that if the committee of a society is superseded under Section 32 of the Act based on the factual findings rendered in a report of inquiry or inspection without providing to the party 2026:KER:2499 WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 12 concerned a copy of the report of inquiry or inspection, the order of supersession would be plainly illegal. Similarly, if any person mentioned in Section 68(1) of the Act is surcharged based on the finding in an order of inquiry under Section 65 or inspection under Section 66 without giving to him a copy of the report of inquiry or inspection as also the report of inquiry under Section 68(1), the surcharge order would also be illegal. The argument advanced by the learned State Attorney that the party concerned, if chooses to obtain copy of the report of inquiry or inspection, he will have to obtain it under Rule 24 of the Rules cannot be accepted. But that does not mean that the statute contemplates an implied obligation on the part of the Registrar to afford an opportunity of hearing as to the acceptability or otherwise of the report of inspection before initiating proceedings pursuant to the same whether it be under Section 32 or under Section 68 of the Act. The scheme of the Act appears to us to be that the correctness or otherwise of the report of inquiry or inspection, shall be canvassed by the parties concerned in the hearing provided to them on the further action taken pursuant to the report, for the hearing would not serve any purpose if the Registrar does not propose any action based on the report. Even if the Registrar proposes any action, be it under Sections 32 or 68, the said action being one on the basis of the report of inquiry or inspection, the essential purpose of the opportunity of hearing in the proceedings initiated for taking action being to enable the parties concerned to canvass for the correctness of the findings in the report of inquiry or inspection, there is no need for a hearing before a tentative decision is taken on the action based on the report. Needless to say, it is unnecessary to have two hearings for the same purpose. In other words, we are of the view that the nature of the statutory duty imposed on the authorities under the Act does not imply any obligation to hear the 2026:KER:2499 WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 13 parties concerned on the acceptability or otherwise of the report of inquiry or inspection as the case may be, before a tentative decision is taken on the further action on the report."
It is clear from the law laid down by the Full Bench of this court in Kudayathoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) that the petitioners have to take all contentions before the competent authority when the show cause notice is adjudicated under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 68, of the 1969 Act. Therefore, leaving open the right of the petitioners to raise all contentions before the competent authority, this writ petition will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
2026:KER:2499
WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 14
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING CRB NO.
409/2023 DATED 19/5/2023 OF RESPONDENT NO. 3
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO PETITIONER NO. 3
Exhibit P2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 27/12/2024
GIVEN BY PETITIONER NO. 2
Exhibit P2 (b) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 27/12/2024
GIVEN BY PETITIONER NO. 3
Exhibit P2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 27/12/2024
GIVEN BY PETITIONER NO. 4
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 27/12/2024
THUS SUBMITTED BY THE ABOVE RESPONDENT NO. 4
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION BEARING NO. 10
DATED 16/2/2011 (RELAVENT PAGES)
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION BEARING NO. 23
DATED 10/5/2011 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
RESPONDENT NO. 6 BANK
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION BEARING NO. 8
DATED 23/8/2011 OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF
RESPONDENT NO. 6 BANK
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 65 ENQUIRY REPORT
PREPARED BY RESPONDENT NO. 4 DATED 31/12/2024 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION BEARING NO. 23 DATED 29/1/2013 OF THE THEN BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RESPONDENT NO. 6 BANK Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED ON 6/8/2025 BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 3 Exhibit P9(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.
JRGPTA/409/2023-CRB DATED 29/5/2025 OF
RESPONDENT NO. 3
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. 385/25
DATED 17/6/2025 THUS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.
5 TO PETITIONER NO. 1 UNDER SECTION 68 (1) OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1969 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/6/2025 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO. 1 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 5 2026:KER:2499 WP(C) NO. 35294 OF 2025 15 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/7/2025 THUS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO. 1 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 5 Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/6/2025 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO. 2 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 5 Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER BEARING NO. CRB.4719/14 DATED 15/10/2014 OF RESPONDENT NO. 3 Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN N. VISWANATHAN NAIR VS. UNIT INSPECTOR, ATTINGAL [2024 KHC ONLINE 1661] Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ELLAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK VS. STATE OF KERALA [1997 KHC 330] Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MOOKANUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK VS. STATE OF KERALA [2024 KHC ONLINE 963] Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN JOHNSON K. VS. JOINT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), TRIVANDRUM [2024 KHC ONLINE 603] Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN KANJIRAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS [2017 KHC 882] Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN KASARGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ANOTHER VS. RADHA K.A. & ANOTHER [2016 (1) KHC 260] Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS VS. VINOD KUMAR C.R. [2020 KHC 468] Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS VS. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) [2014 KHC 4818] Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BE COURT IN A.K. FRANCIS VS. JOINT REGISTRAR [1990 KHC 411] Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAW OF RESPONDENT NO.
6 BANK (THE THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3260)