Karnataka High Court
Sri Jockim Correa vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2022
Author: B. M. Shyam Prasad
Bench: B. M. Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10743/2022 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN :
1. SRI JOCKIM CORREA
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE JOHN CORREA
PESIDENT,
KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA
SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 574 227.
2. SRI.GANGADHARA SHETTY
AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE BABU SHETTY
VICE PRESIDENT,
KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA SEVA
SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 574 227.
3. SRI.JAGATHPALA BHANDARY
AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE NEMANNA BHANDARY,
DIRECTOR,
KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI
SANGHA NIYAMITHA,
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-574 227.
2
4. SRI.P.GOVINDA RAJ BHAT
AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O LATE LAKSHMAN BHAT,
DIRECTOR,
KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA
SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 227.
5. SRI.ASHOK NAIK
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE AIYTHAPPA NAIK
DIRECTOR
KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA SEVA
SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 227.
6. SRI.YASHODHARA NAIK,
S/O LATE HOOVAYYA NAIK,
DIRECTOR,
KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA SEVA
SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 227.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P P HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
CO OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
D.K.DISTRICT, MANGALORE - 575 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
MANGALORE SUB DIVISION,
D.K.DISTRICT, MANGALORE-575 001.
4. KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA SEVA
SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA
REPTED BY ITS CEO
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 227.
5. SRI.NAGARAJA KAMATH
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE K.VARADARAJ KAMATH
DIRECTOR,
KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA SEVA
SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 227.
6. SRI.SATHISH AMIN
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE JAYA KOTIAN DIRECTOR
KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA SEVA
SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 227.
7. SRI.SADANANDA POOJARY
AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE DHARMANNA POOJARY
DIRECTOR,
KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA SEVA
SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK,
4
D.K.DISTRICT-574 227.
8. SMT.VISHALAKSHI
AGED 65 YEARS,
W/O UMESH POOJARY
DIRECTOR,
KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA SEVA
SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 227.
9. SRI.VASANTHA NAIK
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHINGA NAYAK,
DIRECTOR,
KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA SEVA
SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,
BANANGADY, MOODABIDRI TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 227.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1-R3;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R9;
R4 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.05.2022 PASSED BY
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
MANGALORE/ R2 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. r Dgï ¦: J¸ï
11:30(1):D.ªÀÄA. gÀzÀÝw:¹ Dgï 01:2022-23, SUPERSEDING THE BOARD OF
THE KALLAMUNDKUR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA
NIYAMITHA / R4 FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND ALSO THE
APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR TO MANAGE THE
AFFAIRS OF THE SAID SOCIETY WHICH IS PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-D.
5
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THIS
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Petitioners are the members of Board of Directors of M/s Kallamundkur Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha [hereafter referred to as, 'the Cooperative Society'] along with fifth to ninth respondents; the first and the second petitioners are the President and Vice President respectively. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 21.05.2022 [Annexure D] by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mangalore [the second respondent]. The second respondent by the impugned order has superseded the Board for a period of 6 months appointing an administrator to manage the affairs of the Cooperative Society during this period.
2. The second respondent, before issuing the impugned order dated 21.05.2022, has issued Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022 [Annexure B] to the petitioners and 6 the other members of the Board mentioning certain specific acts of omissions and commissions. The second respondent apart from mentioning such specific acts of omissions and commissions has also mentioned that there are two factions amongst the Directors. The petitioners, who make one faction, do not permit the other faction made up of the fifth and ninth respondents to effectively participate in the Board proceedings and this has resulted in lack of cohesion amongst the members of the Board affecting the developmental activities of the Co-operative Society. The second respondent has further stated that action under Section 30 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short the 'Cooperative Societies Act') should be taken because [a] there is persistent default and negligence in performance of the duties; [b] the conduct of the affairs of the Cooperative Society is prejudicial to its interest, [c] there is stalemate in the functioning of the Board and [d] there are serious financial irregularities and fraud. 7
3. The petitioners have responded to the Show Cause Notice by their reply dated 17.0 5.2022 [Annexure C]. The petitioners have alleged that the Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022 is issued under political pressure, and though this notice dated 09.05.2022 refers to different annexures, the copies of these annexures have not been furnished and without the copies of such annexures they would not be in a position to meet the allegations. The petitioners have asserted that a meeting of the Board is convened on 24.05.2022, and the notice would be placed before the Board in such meeting for appropriate response. The petitioners have also stated that if the copies of the annexures are furnished immediately, they would file a reply within 2 weeks. The second respondent has thereafter issued the impugned order dated 21.05.2022.
4. Sri P.P. Hegde, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the imputation in the Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022 are many and are in the light of 8 certain annexures. Admittedly, the petitioners are not furnished with the copies of these annexures, and the petitioners are categorical in their reply dated 17.05.2022 that without copies of these annexures, they will not be in a position to understand the allegations and therefore unable to respond. The petitioners are forthright in stating that they would submit a detailed reply within two weeks if the copies are furnished, and such reply would be after a meeting of the Board of Directors on 24.05.2022. However, the second respondent, without furnishing copies of the annexures and even before 24.05.2022, has issued the impugned order denying a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners.
5. Sri P.P. Hegde submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harivadan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat1 has observed that the Registrar/Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies must follow judicial precedents emphasizing that ratio decidendi has the force of law and is 1 (2013) 7 SCC 25 9 binding on all statutory authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also issued general directions to be followed for superseding elected Committees and these directions require the authorities under the concerned Cooperative Societies Acts to give sufficient time [at least, 6 months] to rectify defects and the concerned must bear in mind that the consequences of an order of supersession would not only oust the Board out of office but also disqualify the members from contesting elections and the succeeding elections.
6. Sri P P Hegde argues that in the present case there is an undeniable lack of opportunity and recklessness in issuing the impugned order dated 21.05.2022. The petitioners have thus established that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court must intervene, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to pass suitable orders in the interest of justice.
10
7. Sri P P Hegde, relying upon a decision of this Hon'ble Court in Sanjay B Patil and another v. State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Corporation and others2, submits that the rule of exclusion of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, and in appropriate cases, this Court could exercise such jurisdiction. This Court has further held that if it is shown that orders are in violation of the principles of natural justice, it would not be just and reasonable to direct the affected to avail alternative remedy under the Cooperative Societies Act. In the present case, the petitioners must not be called upon to avail alternative remedy under section 106(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act because the petitioners have been denied due opportunity to show cause against the supersession of the Board.
2 ILR 2010 Karnataka 377 11
8. Sri P P Hegde argues that the second respondent has issued Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022 alleging violation of certain provisions of Sections 28-C and 29-C of the Cooperative Societies Act. The provisions of Section 29-C of the Cooperative Societies Act provide for disqualification of a member of the Board and if there are reasons for action under this Section, the proceedings could only culminate in disqualification of such member. The alleged violation of the provisions of Section 29-C of the Cooperative Societies Act cannot be made a basis for supersession or suspension of the Board paving way for the appointment of an administrator.
9. Sri. P P Hegde submits if therefore the allegations against a Director are found justified, that is after due opportunity and enquiry, there could be action against such individual Director. The second respondent, who has issued the Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022 making certain personal allegations against some of the petitioners, could not 12 have assumed jurisdiction, to supersede the Board. This Court therefore, must interfere with the impugned order dated 21.05.2022 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
10. Sri D R Ravi Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel for the fifth to ninth respondents [the contesting respondents], submits that there are serious financial irregularities with the first petitioner, the president of the Cooperative Society, availing loans for himself and his family members without necessary records/security, and in fact the first petitioner has ensured that loans are sanctioned to himself for the purchase of JCB J581 Tracked Excavator far in excess of the estimate. The contesting respondents because of these irregularities, as also the other irregularities, have raised objections and the petitioners have ensured that these objections are not even recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The authorities have issued directions to rectify certain deficiencies, including the deficiency in the appointment of certain employees, and those directions have not been implemented. As such, the lack of 13 cohesion and failure to promote the Cooperative Society's interests are undeniable.
11. Sri D R Ravi Shankar submits that in the event irregularities in the conduct of the affairs of the Cooperative Society and consistent failure to adhere to the directions are established, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Cooperative Societies Act would be justified. The petitioners are not bona fide in putting forth a case of denial of reasonable opportunity. In the light of the allegations against the petitioners, they cannot, without first availing the statutory remedy under section 106 (1) of the Cooperative Societies Act, invoke the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. Sri D R Ravi Shankar next submits that the petitioners' grievance is because the second respondent has not furnished copies of the annexures referred to in the Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022. However, as could be 14 ascertained from even a reading of the statements in the Show Cause Notice, the allegations against the petitioners are with regard to their specific acts as members of the Board, and the petitioners, as members of the Board, would undeniably have access to all the necessary documents. The petitioners could have accessed those documents and filed their reply if they were bona fide. The petitioners have deliberately not availed the opportunity. Therefore, the assertion that the petitioners are denied a reasonable opportunity is wholly fallacious.
13. Sri D R Ravi Shankar contends that even otherwise, it is settled that a technical challenge alleging violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be accepted if prejudice is not established. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar3 to urge that the theory of reasonable opportunity and principles of natural justice have 3 (1993 ) 4 SCC 727 15 been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rights to be performed on all and sundry occasions. He argues that the petition is bereft of necessary pleadings as regards the prejudice that is caused to them, and the petitioners, who have not even challenged the finding that they are guilty of certain irregularities, cannot plead prejudice because they have not been furnished with the annexures referred to in the Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022. He relies upon paragraph - 53 of the Full Bench decision of this Court in M/s. Deepak Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. City Union Bank Ltd.4
14. In rejoinder, Sri. P.P. Hegde submits that even according to the authorities, as seen in Annexure-R3, the authorities had approved the engagement of certain employees on temporary basis for the period 31.03.2022. This approval is granted because it is opined that if such 4 ILR 2016 (2) KAR 1805 16 employees are removed from service with immediate effect, the services offered by the Society to its Members would be affected. He also submits that the allegations of financial irregularities, as detailed in the statement of objections and canvassed before this Court are not forthcoming either in the Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022 or the impugned order dated 21.05.2022.
15. It is obvious from the rival submissions that the petitioners could avail remedy under Section 106 (1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, but because the petitioners allege denial of reasonable opportunity and lack of jurisdiction, this Court must test the merits of the impugned order dated 21.05.2022 on such limited grounds. Hence, the question for consideration would be:
Whether the petitioners can justifiably invoke this Court's plenary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to call in question the second respondent's impugned order dated 21.05.2022 17 [Annexure-D] without availing alternative remedy under section 106 (1) of the Karnataka Co- Operative Societies Act, 1959.
16. It is settled that generally the rule of alternative remedy is invoked and the concerned directed to avail alternative remedy, but when it is shown that there is failure to comply with the principles of natural justice and that has resulted in prejudice to the concerned, this Court would exercise the plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court's decision in Sanjay V. Patil v. State of Karnataka and Others supra is a reiteration of this settled position. The petitioners contend that the second respondent's impugned order is in violation of pri-nciples of natural justice because they have not been furnished with the annexures referred to in the Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022 and they have been denied reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations. It is also settled that he who alleges violation of the principles of 18 natural justice must also establish a serious jeopardy of his rights, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, EICL v. B. Karunakar supra is a reiteration of the same.
17. The second respondent has issued Show cause notice on 09.05.2022 and the petitioners have responded by their reply dated 17.05.2022. The petitioners are categorical in this reply that without the copies of the documents, they would not be in a position to know the allegations and therefore unable to respond. They have also stated that if the copies are served, they would file their reply within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the copies, and further, they have also mentioned that such reply would be after discussion in the Board's Meeting scheduled to be held on 24.05.2022. The petitioners' response in this regard reads as under:
"3. Moreover, the notice issued by you comprises of reference to various documents which are 19 mentioned in your notice as CqÀPÀ-1(J), CqÀPÀ-1(©), CqÀPÀ-1(¹), CqÀPÀ-2(J), CqÀPÀ-2(r)and CqÀPÀ-4(J) and also there is a reference to several documents in Para. r of your notice which says DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉÃ, ¸Á®UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, G¥À«¢AiÀÄ «ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ÄÃj ¸Á® ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¨sÀzÀævɬĮèzÉ ¸Á® ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, SÉÆmÉÖ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶ׹ ¸Á® ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ PÀÄjvÁV ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀjAzÀ¯Éà zÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹éÃPÀgÀªÁVgÀĪÀ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAWÀzÀ°è UÀA©üÃgÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ ºÀtPÁ¸ÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ UÀĪÀiÁ¤¬ÄzÀÄÝ.............." No document pertaining to these allegations are furnished to us. We are kept in dark about these documents.
4. The copies of the documents mentioned above are not provided to us along with the reply. We do not know the contents of the above documents. Therefore we are not in a position to know the allegations against us and hence we are not able to prepare our reply to your notice.
5. Moreover, the next meeting of the Board is fixed for 24.05.2022 wherein all the Directors of the Society will be present and the subject notice will be placed for discussion and to take proper decision in the matter; and also to prepare our reply to your notice. The above documents are 20 very much required to be placed before the meeting so that all the members are apprised of the contents thereof. Please furnish copies of the documents before the meeting.
6. Therefore, it is requested that the documents mentioned above (in para 3) may kindly be immediately provided to us and upon receipt of the same, we will file our reply within two weeks thereof."
The second respondent, without furnishing the copies of the annexures or otherwise responding to this reply, has issued the impugned order on 21.05.2022, even before the scheduled Meeting on 24.05.2022. There is undoubtedly a certain haste in issuing the impugned order, and this Court must necessarily examine whether the petitioners' rights are jeopardised because they have not been given copies of the documents referred to in the Show Cause Notice. This question must necessarily be examined in the light of the allegations against the petitioners.
21
18. The second respondent has detailed the following acts of omissions and commissions in the Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022:
• Appointment of Temporary Employees: Certain temporary Employees are taken in employment in violation of Rule 17(4) of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Rules, 1960 without the prior approval and these employees are continued in employment despite directions of the authorities. This would be in contravention of the provisions of section 28-C(h) and 29-C(8)(c) of the Cooperative Societies Act;
• Justifying certain actions without complying with the directions of the authorities: The petitioners, without adhering to the directions issued by the authorities, have responded justify their actions, and this would also be in violation of the provisions of29-C(8)(c) of the Cooperative Societies Act; • Failure to work to achieve the objects of the Cooperative Society: The petitioners have not 22 recorded the objections raised by some directors [the fifth to ninth respondents] and as such, the directors are themselves entering their objections in the registers and this indicates lack of cohesion amongst the directors and failure to work towards achieving the objective is of the Cooperative Society as contemplated under28-C (2)(J) of the Cooperative Societies Act;
• Failure to comply with the directions dated 28.02.2022 to give effect to certain decisions:
Certain directions have been issued 28.02.2022 for immediate implementation in the light of the unanimous decisions in the meeting convened on 25.02.2020, and these directions have not been implemented in violation of the provisions of section 28-C (2) (h) and 29-C(8)(c) of the Cooperative Societies Act;
• Failure to comply with the directions dated 05.02.2022: Certain deposits have been from persons who are not members of the Society, temporary employees have been given greater responsibilities and the appointment letters issued 23 to temporary employees does not indicate that such appointment as temporary. Therefore, directions have been issued on 05.02.2022 to rectify these mistakes but in violation of the provisions of sections28-C (2) (h) and 29-C(8)(c) of the Cooperative Societies Act, these directions have not been followed;
• Financial irregularities: The president of the Cooperative Society - the first petitioner - his party to different financial irregularities such as creation of false documents, extending loans without necessary documents/security to non- members, including those who work as household assistants and failure to ensure recovery of dues.
19. It is obvious from reading of these allegations that there are a variety of allegations including financial irregularities in the disbursement of loans. The Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022 refers to annexures in this regard in Annexure-4A. As regards the allegation that there is irregularity in engaging some persons in temporary 24 employment, there is reference to Annexure-1A and similarly as regards the allegations of unjustified assertion as regards failure to comply with certain directions and the disharmony within the Members of the Board, there is reference to Annexures-1A and 1B. The allegations in these regards are general and unless the allegations are conveyed with necessary details, it cannot be reasonably inferred that the petitioners could have accessed on their own the necessary documents to offer their explanation. This Court in the aforesaid circumstances, is of the considered view that there is force in the submission that the petitioners did not have a reasonable opportunity to offer their explanations.
20. The prejudice to the petitioners, with the denial of a reasonable opportunity, is rather obvious. The second respondent by the impugned order dated 21.05.2022 has superseded the Board and one of the consequences, because of the provisions of Section 30[2] of the Cooperative Societies Act, is disqualification from contesting elections for a certain 25 period. It is therefore that the provisions of Section 30[2] of the Cooperative Societies Act contemplate giving an opportunity to the Board to state objections to either superseding or suspension of the Board and appointment of an Administrator. Therefore, this Court is also of the considered view that the petitioners' grievance that they have been denied a reasonable opportunity to show cause against superseding the Board and the appointment of an Administrator is not an incantation of a requirement.
21. This Court, because the entire controversy must be revisited from the stage of petitioners being served with the copies of the documents referred to in the Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022, the question of jurisdiction should be left open to be decided in future if there is occasion for the same. As such, the question for consideration is answered in favour of the petitioners and the impugned order dated 21.05.2022 must be quashed leaving all questions open for 26 reconsideration in accordance with law subject to certain consequential directions. Hence the following:
ORDER [a] The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 21.05.2022 in No. £ÀA.rDgï ¦:J¸ï11:30(1):D.ªÀÄA.gÀzÀÝw:¹Dgï01:2022-23 [Annexure-D] by the second respondent - the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, is quashed.
[b] The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society is called upon to furnish copies of the annexures referred to in the Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022 [Annexure - B] to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 27
[c] The petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy.
[d] The petitioners, within fifteen [15] days from the receipt of the copies of such annexures, shall file their additional objections, and the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society is directed to consider such objections strictly in accordance with law within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of the additional objections.
[e] The Administrator appointed by the impugned order shall hand over the charge of the Cooperative Society to the petitioners and the contesting respondents forthwith.
[f] The petitioners and the contesting respondents are restrained from taking, as members of the 28 Board, any policy decision or decisions to sanction and disburse loans until the second respondent decides on the additional objections in compliance with the directions issued of this Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/nv*