Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned judgment on 23.01.2022, disposing of both the WP(C)s ordering that since the order under challenge is only a showcause notice under Section 32, it is for the respondent Joint Registrar to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and all contentions available to the writ petitioners are kept open to be raised before the respondent Joint Registrar in the said proceedings. We are now told that in view of the subsequent conduct of elections by the Managing Committee, the term of Managing Committee which was in power at the time of issuance of the showcause notice and the initiation of writ proceedings, is over and the newly elected Managing Committee has taken charge on 05.06.2022. The Full Bench of this Court in the decision in WA NO. 303 OF 2022 & WA No.305 of 2022 Anil M.S Vs. Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, [2021 (4) KHC 119] (FB) has held in sub paragraph 2 of paragraph 25 thereof that Matsyafed's case, (The Administrator, Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd (Matsyafed Vs. Board of Directors) in WA No.1936/2011), is no more good law to be followed as a precedent. Further that when the Managing Committee of the Society is not actually existing, the fact that the proceedings initiated against it under Section 32 of the KCS Act for supersession, but could not be completed due to expiry of the prescribed term of the Committee, is no ground to permit continuation of such proceedings for supersession against a non- existent Committee even for the limited purpose of conducting it notionally and subject to its outcome to impose constitutional disqualifications under Section 32(1)(e) of the KCS Act. It was held by the Full Bench therein that even in a case where, on initiation proceedings for supersession, an order of supersession was passed and an Administrator for Administrative Committee was appointed, once the order of supersession is successfully challenged and in the meanwhile, the prescribed term of the Managing Committee got elapsed, the proceedings for supersession under Section 13(2) to WA NO. 303 OF 2022 & WA No.305 of 2022 remove the Committee would not survive thereafter and that in other words, it would get abated. It will be profitable to refer to paragraph No.25 of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in M.S.Anil's case (supra) [2021 (4) KHC 119] (FB) p.142-143, which reads as follows:

Matsyafed's case is no more good law to be followed as a precedent. When the Managing Committee of a society is not actually existing the fact that proceedings initiated against it under Section 32 of the KCS Act for supersession, but could not be completed due to the expiry of the prescribed term of the Committee, is no ground to permit continuation of such proceedings for supersession against a non-existent committee even for the limited purpose of conducting it notionally and subject to its outcome, to impose consequential disqualifications under Section 32(1) (e) of the KCS Act. Even in a case where on initiation proceedings for supersession an order of supersession was passed and an administrator or administrative committee was appointed, once the order of supersession is successfully challenged and in the meanwhile the prescribed term of the Managing Committee got elapsed, the proceedings for supersession under Section 32 of the KCS Act to remove the Committee would not survive thereafter and in other words it would get abated. In such circumstances, it will not be permissible to exercise the jurisdiction in futility to direct for continuation of such proceedings. If actions or omissions on the part of an existing committee call for its supersession it should be initiated in accordance with law and an inability to initiate or failure to initiate it, within the tenure of the committee in the prescribed manner is no ground to seek for exercise of jurisdiction in futility. Even if WA NO. 303 OF 2022 & WA No.305 of 2022 proceedings were initiated and an order of supersession of the existing committee under section 32 of the KCS Act was passed upon interference with the order of supersession by the Court on any of the legally permissible ground, the fact that such interference was on technical ground is no ground or reason for granting liberty to proceed with such proceedings for supersession if the term of office of that committee had expired in the meanwhile. However, we make it clear that if the report on an inquiry under Section 65 or an inspection under Section 66 was the basis for initiation of proceedings under section 32, interference with the order of supersession by itself would not invalidate such a report. If it is capable of satisfying the ingredients for an action under Section 68 of the KCS Act it could be initiated and, needless to say that, in such eventuality it will have necessary consequences, subject to its outcome."