Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Ravikumar, J.

A Division Bench of this Court doubted the correctness of the Division Bench decision in The Administrator, the Kerala State Co- operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. No.FT 738 (Matsyafed) v. The Board of Directors of the Kerala State Co- operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. No.FT 738 (Matsyafed) (W.A.No.1936 of 2011), (hereinafter referred for short 'the Matsyafed's case') and authored the order of reference dated 11.4.2019 by making a further observation that the decision in Gireesh Kumar v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies reported in 2013 (3) KLT S.N.101 (Case No.105) is distinguishable.

4. When the appeal came up for admission on 22.03.2019, the Division Bench admitted the same and stayed further proceedings pursuant to the impugned judgment. Obviously, the respondents relied on the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Matsyafed's case(supra) to support the decision in Gireesh Kumar's case (supra), which was relied on by the learned Single Judge for forming the conclusion that in view of the consequence of disqualification of the Committee members from contesting the election, as per Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the KCS Act the proceedings under Section 32 of the KCS Act initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 notice would have to come to a logical end, despite the quashment of Ext.P8 order of supersession. Doubting the correctness of the decision in Matsyafed's case(supra) the order of reference dated 11.04.2019 was issued in the said circumstances.

5. For a worthy consideration of the reference a glance at the factual backdrop of Matsyafed's case (supra) is also essential. In Matsyafed's case (supra), W.A.Nos.1936 of 2011 and 31 of 2012, both carrying challenge against the judgment in W.P.(C)No.24401/2011, were allowed to a limited extent. Those appeals were filed against the judgment of the writ Court interfering with the order of supersession of the Managing Committee of the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd., No.FT.738 (Matsyafed) under Section 32 of the KCS Act. Earlier, notice under Section 32 of the KCS Act was issued to the Managing Committee of Matsyafed by the 3rd respondent therein, upon satisfying the existence of ingredients for an action thereunder, in the report of inspection conducted under Section 66 of the KCS Act. The Managing Committee and the State Co-operative Union, on receipt of such notices sought time for filing reply. However, as the tenure of the Managing Committee was to expire soon and in the inquiry the Managing Committee was found to have involved in serious irregularities attracting action under Section 32(1) of the KCS Act the 3rd respondent therein issued order of supersession of the committee of Matsyafed within three days from the date of service of notice. The said order of supersession, issued in the aforesaid manner, was set aside by the learned Single Judge and the Managing Committee was restored in power. The State and the Administrator appointed to the Society pursuant to the supersession of the Managing Committee, filed W.A.Nos.31/2012 and 1936/2011 aggrieved by the setting aside of the order of supersession and restoration of the Committee in power. The Division Bench noticed that the writ Court interfered with the supersession on the ground of violation of natural justice and want of effective consultation with the State Co-operative Union and further that the term of office of the Managing Committee of the Society had expired subsequently and held that even when an order is found to be defective the proceeding should not be cancelled by the Court if it was initiated based on a report of inquiry or inspection, conducted in terms of the statutory provisions. It was observed by the Division Bench that haste was shown by the Director of Fisheries, who was then functioning as the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, only because the tenure of the Managing Committee of Matsyafed was getting over. Consequently, the Division Bench, in Matsyafed's case (supra), held that the proceedings initiated during the tenure of the Society under Section 32 of the KCS Act, pursuant to an inspection under Section 66, would not get extinguished merely because of the expiry of the tenure of the Managing Committee. in that view of the matter, in Matsyafed's case, the writ appeals were allowed by confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent it set aside the order of supersession of the Managing Committee on the ground of violation of natural justice and want of effective consultation and then, by restoring the proceedings initiated pursuant to the notices issued under Section 32 to the files of the Director of Fisheries. Consequently, it was held that it is for the Director of Fisheries to issue fresh notices to all elected members of the Managing Committee and other persons against whom proceedings were issued under Section 32 of the KCS Act and to make effective consultation with the State Co-operative Union on supersession of the Managing Committee notionally and to consider whether supersession was called for. Further it was ordered thereunder thus:-

It is after posing such questions and making such observations that the Division Bench ordered thus:-

"Place the papers before the Chief Justice to enable the constitution of a Full Bench to decide the correctness of the decision in Matsyafed's case (supra)."

9. From the above narration it is evident that as per the reference, the Full Bench is virtually called upon to decide the correctness of the decision in Matsyafed's case (supra). Besides the same, in view of the observation of the Division Bench that Gireesh Kumar's case (supra) is distinguishable the Full Bench is also to answer the following questions:-