Kerala High Court
P.C.Raman vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 24 June, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY,THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
WP(C).No. 21956 of 2009 (L)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
P.C.RAMAN,
PURATHECHIRAMMAL, KOTHAYIMMUKKU, KANDOTHU P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCEITIES (G), KASARGODE.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.J.MICHAEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C) NO.21956/2009 (L)
-------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
--------------------------------------
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CB(1) 2644/2007 DATED 24.6.2007.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C.R.P./753/2009 DATED 28.4.2009.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.5.2009.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.CB(1) 24151/2009 DATED 10.7.2009
ENCLOSING THE REPORT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
W.P.(C) No.21956 of 2009 - L
======================
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is aggrieved with no notice having been issued, on the report, filed under Section 66, which the petitioner contends, is against Rule 66(5). The inspection under Section 66 has to comply with the conditions laid down in Rule 66(5), is the contention. Hence, if inspection report is filed, a copy of the same ought to have been put to the managing committee members and a reasonable opportunity for hearing be afforded before any action is taken, is the contention raised.
2. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others v. M. Aravindakshan Nair and others [2010 KHC 545] found that Rule 66(5) does not contemplate that, any separate opportunity has to be given to any society or person, except with regard to the proposal of the Registrar for ordering costs of inspection to be borne by any of the parties specified in Section 67. The Division Bench has proceeded on the premise that the action proposed on the W.P.(C) No.21956 of 2009 - L 2 enquiry report, either under Section 68 or Section 62, would lead to an issuance of a show-cause notice. Acceptance of the enquiry report is not a separate function, where the Registrar has to apply his mind or enter a satisfaction as to the efficacy of the report. The Registrar has been conferred with power of supervision and inspection under Section 66 and the authorisation of another person to carry out the inspection, is a mere delegation of convenience prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 66. The enquiry report, being only a pre-cursor to the anticipated action, the show-cause notice issued, on threat of such action, would afford ample opportunity to raise objections against the findings in the report, was the finding. Herein also the action challenged is a show-cause notice issued under Section 68. In such circumstances, the issue is covered against the petitioner.
Writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN,
JUDGE
SB // true copy //
P.A To Judge.