Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel appearing for other respondents.

2.This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge refusing to interfere with the action taken following invocation of Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, 'Act', for short, by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. (Matsyafed) is an apex co-operative society. Section 65 of the Act was invoked and an order authorising enquiry under that provision was ordered, whereunder the second respondent was appointed as the enquiry officer. He required the officers enlisted in Ext.P3 to visit and collect information through different officers WA247/17 of Matsyafed. Consequential proceedings are under challenge on the plea that the action taken by the second respondent in enlisting and directing different other officers to collect information amounts to sub-delegation of power which has been delegated under Section 65 of the Act by the first respondent - Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to the second respondent enquiry officer. It is also pointed out that Ext.P4 notice was issued by the second respondent to the society calling for information even before the enquiry had reached anywhere.

(f) of the Act by the first respondent is to the second respondent. All that the second respondent has done through Ext.P3 is to enlist officers for the purpose of collecting information from different officers of Matsyafed. They are not authorised to take any independent view on the basis of those materials, and the facts that they report to the second respondent have to be independently considered by the second respondent in formulating his opinion, which will go as a report to the first respondent. In that view of the matter, the primary authority of the first respondent, which was delegated to the second respondent on the basis of clause (f) of Section 65(1) of the Act, does not get further delegated by the second respondent to the officers enlisted in Ext.P3. Therefore, the case in hand is not at all one of sub-delegation, which would fall in the wise of a delegate extending the delegated power to a further delegate. WA247/17

4.The aforesaid position notwithstanding, we see that the learned single Judge had also adopted a practical view to consider and hold that Matsyafed being an apex body is a huge institution with several branches spread across and it is humanly impossible for one person to conduct inspection even if it was ordered to be done so, and therefore, under Ext.P3 different persons are required to visit different officers for collecting information and reporting to the second respondent. On the scales of justice, we do not see that the said finding calls for any interference at our hands.