Kerala High Court
/ 3Rd vs / Petitioner And on 12 December, 2011
Author: C.N.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/26TH PHALGUNA 1933
WA.No. 1936 of 2011 ( ) IN WPC/24401/2011
------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.24401/2011 DATED 12-12-2011
APPELLANT(S):/ 3RD RESPONDENT
------------
THE ADMINISTRATOR
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT LTD.NO.FT 738 (MATSYAFED) MANACAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
RESPONDENT(S):/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4
--------------
1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE KERALA STATE
CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD NO.FT.738, MATSYAFED
MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3. THE REGISTRAR OF FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
AND DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.
4. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
SAMSTHANA SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, OOTTUKUZHY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
R2 & R3 BY ADV.D.SOMASUNDARAM, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R4 BY ADV.MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,
R1 BY ADV. P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-03-2012,
ALONG WITH WA. 31/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
....................................................................
W.A.Nos.1936 of 2011
& 31 of 2012
....................................................................
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
These Writ Appeals are filed both by the State and the Administrator appointed after supersession of the Society challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who interfered with the orders issued under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 superseding the Managing Committee and the appointment of the Administrator. An inspection was carried out under Section 66 and based on report relating to alleged irregularity against the Managing Committee members, notice was issued under Section 32. Both the Managing Committee as well as the State Co-operative Union to which notices were issued sought for time for filing reply. However, since the tenure of the Managing Committee has come to an end and on enquiry the Managing Committee was found to be involved in irregularities supersession orders were issued within three days from date W.A.Nos.1936/2011 & 31/2012 -2- of service of the notice. When this was questioned, the learned Single Judge interfered with the supersession orders by vacating it and restoring the Managing Committee, the tenure of which is now over.
2. During hearing, the Special Government Pleader appearing for the Department and the learned counsel appearing for the Administrator submitted that the judgment is liable to be interfered with in appeal because on technical reason the learned Single Judge vacated the supersession orders issued under Section 32. According to the appellants, supersession has serious consequences such as disability for Managing Committee members from contesting election for two terms. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that supersession is politically motivated and there is no substance in the allegation of mismanagement.
3. After hearing both sides, what we notice is that the learned Single Judge has interfered with the supersession only on ground of violation of natural justice, i.e. without going into the merits of the case, and for want of consultation with the State Co-operative Union. When an order is found to be W.A.Nos.1936/2011 & 31/2012 -3- defective, the proceeding by itself cannot be cancelled by the Court particularly when it is based on a report of enquiry and inspection conducted in terms of statutory provisions. Haste was shown by the Director of Fisheries, who is functioning as Registrar of Co-operative Societies, only because of tenure of the Managing Committee was getting over. We do not think the proceeding initiated pursuant to inspection under Section 32 within the tenure of the Society gets extinguished merely because the tenure of the Managing Committee is over. It was for the Director (Fisheries) to give an opportunity to the respondents to answer the allegations raised against them and also to make effective consultation with the State Co-operative Union before finalising the proceedings initiated against the members of the Managing Committee under Section 32 of the Act.
4. We therefore allow the Writ Appeals by confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge with regard to cancellation of Section 32 order on the ground of violation of natural justice but by restoring the proceedings initiated pursuant to notices issued under Section 32 to the Director of W.A.Nos.1936/2011 & 31/2012 -4- Fisheries for him to issue fresh notices to all elected members of the Managing Committee and other persons against whom proceedings were issued under Section 32, give sufficient opportunity, make effective consultation with the State Co- operative Union on supersession of the Managing Committee notionally and to consider whether supersession is called for. If orders originally issued are restored backed by proper reasons and materials after hearing and giving opportunity to the elected members of the Managing Committee and after consultation with the State Co-operative Union, then all consequences will follow including disability to the members of the Managing Committee.
These Writ Appeals are allowed to the limited extent indicated above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg