Kerala High Court
Unknown vs Petitioner on 26 March, 2021
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
WP(C) 8081/2021 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
Friday,the 26th day of March 2021/5th Chaithra, 1943
WP(C) No.8081/2021
PETITIONER
For information purpose only
SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN PILLAI,
RESIDING AT PARAMPUKATTIL HOUSE, CHIRAKKADAVU P.O, KOTTAYAM
- 686520, PRESIDENT, THE CHIRAKKADAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD. NO. 2057, H.O. CHIRAKKADAVU, CHIRAKKADAVU P.O, KOTTAYAM -
686520(UNDER SUSPENSION)
RESPONDENTS
1.THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM -
686002.
2.THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR(GENERAL), KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 686507.
3.PARTIME ADMINISTRATOR,PONKUNNAM UNIT, OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 686507
4.JOINT DIRECTOR (AUDIT),OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR(AUDIT) CO-
OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM - 686002.
Writ Petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit
filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be pleased to stay the operation and all further
proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P7 and forthwith handover back the charge to the Managing
Committee of the Chirakkadavu Service Co-operative Bank Limited, of which the petitioner is
the President pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice.
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed
in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of M/S S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN,
Advocate for the petitioner and of SENIOR GOVERNEMNT PLEADER for the respondent
1, the court passed the following
W.P.(C) No.8081/2021 1
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.8081 of 2021
---------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March 2021
ORDER
For information purpose only Issue notice on admission to the respondents. The learned senior Government Pleader takes notice of the first respondent.
2. Interim prayer sought is to stay the operation of Ext.P7 order and to handover back the charge to the Managing Committee of the Society.
3. Petitioner is assailing Ext.P7 order, by which, invoking section 32(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, an order was issued suspending the committee for three months and appointing a part time administrator. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the order was issued without giving the committee an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner relying on the decision reported in Managing Committee Vellathooval Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) (2020 KHC 553) contended that the expression ' it is not reasonably practicable to do so' as available in section 32 (3) qualifies the opportunity for the Committee to state its objections and to consult the Unions and financing Bank. It was held in that decision that, what is relevant was whether it was practically impossible to issue notice and give an opportunity to explain and consult. It was not the gravity of allegations or irregularities noticed during inspection that matters to avoid issuance of the notice. To arrive at this conclusion, learned single Judge had placed reliance W.P.(C) No.8081/2021 2 on the decision reported in Rajeevan V.T.and Others v. K.A.Sukumaran and Others (2013 (3) KHC 46).
4. Considering the question whether the authority was justified in dispensing with the opportunity to the committee, the explanation offered in Ext.P7 as to the For information purpose only circumstances which prevailed on the authority has to be consdiered. Due to the delay that may be caused in hearing the parties under S.32(1) and (2), the authroity apprehended that valuable documents of the bank were likely to be destroyed.This finding was arrived at on the basis of the previous conduct of the bank based on the report of the enquiry officer. He had reported about the extensive manipulation caused to the computer, using a special application software. Several pages of day book were also found missing. It was also stated that external hardware was damaged and huge amounts misappropriated.
5. Having considered the the above facts, prima facie, it appears that the authority had specifically given the reason that if the time was granted, there was a possibility of tampering with the documents. This is a logical and reasonable ground for dispensing with notice. I do not feel that the above two decision relied on by the petitioner will help him in the facts of this case. At this juncture, I am not inclined to grant interim stay. Await appearance of the parties.
Post on 1/6/2021. Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS,Judge
dpk
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
KLHC010210142021 4/4
EXHIBIT P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
For information purpose only