Kerala High Court
The Managing Committee Of Kooveri ... vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 23 April, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY,THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
WP(C).No.23525 of 2008 (A)
--------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-
--------------------------
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KOOVERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.C 65,
KOOVERI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT K.M. PRAKASAN.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM.
RESPONDENT(S):-
----------------------------
THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G),
KANNUR.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).NO.23525 OF 2008
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CRP(2) 3929/06 DATED 23.04.2008.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6.5.2008.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.14462/2008
DATED 9.5.2008.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.R.P.(2) 3927/06/K.Dis. DATED 24.07.2008.
EXT.P5 TRUE COPOY OF THE ORDER NO.C.R.P.(2) 8411/07/K.DIS. DATED 1.2.2008.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
---------------------------------------- NIL.
Vku ( true copy)
K.Vinod Chandran, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.23525 of 2008-A
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of December, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner-Bank is aggrieved with the supersession order passed at Exhibit P4. The petitioner's contention is that, there is no effective consultation as indicated in Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 [for brevity "the Act"]. The petitioner also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Others v. Sanjay Nagayach and Others [2013 (2) KLT 733], to buttress the said contention.
2. The petitioner specifically relies on paragraph 17 of the afore-cited decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is extracted hereunder:
"17. the mere serving a copy of the show-cause-notice on RBI with supporting documents is not what is contemplated under the second proviso to S.53(1). For a meaningful and effective consultation, the copy of the reply filed by the Bank to the various charges and allegations levelled against them should also be WP(C).No.23525 of 2008 - 2 - made available to the RBI as well as the action proposed by the Joint Registrar, after examining the reply submitted by the Bank. On the other hand, RBI should be told of the action the Joint Registrar is intending to take. Only then, there will be an effective consultation and the views expressed by the RBI will be a relevant material for deciding whether the elected Board be superseded or not. In other words, the previous consultation is a condition precedent before forming an opinion by the Joint Registrar to supersede the Board of Directors or not".
3. Looking at Exhibit P4, though a consultation has been effected with the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union, it is seen that only the notice under Section 32(1) has been sent to both the authorities. The Taliparamba Circle Co-operative Union is said to have replied, with a communication dated 15.05.2008, agreeing to the action proposed under Section 32. The Financing Bank, being the District Co-operative Bank, is said to have not responded. Only in such circumstance the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. There is also a stay of the proceedings under Section 32 of the Act.
WP(C).No.23525 of 2008 - 3 -
4. Obviously a notice was issued under Section 32 by Exhibit P1 and the petitioner had replied to the same with an objection at Exhibit P2, which is not seen communicated to the Circle Co-operative Union and the Financing Bank. The Department would have to make proper consultation as provided under Section 32 of the KCS Act and as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decision. In such circumstance, Exhibit P4 would stand set aside.
Leaving open the right of the Department to take appropriate proceedings, the writ petition would stand allowed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran Judge vku/-
( true copy )