Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner is the Chairman of the managing committee of the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. (the Matsyafed). The Matsyafed is the apex society of the Primary Fishery Co-operative Societies in the State. By Ext.P2, the first respondent ordered an inquiry into the affairs of the Matsyafed under Section 65 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act (the Act). The second respondent is the inquiry officer appointed as per Ext.P2 order. In Ext.P2 order, it is stated, among others, that complaints have been received by the first respondent against the managing committee of the Matsyafed raising serious allegations such as, misappropriation, corruption, illegal appointments, wilful disobedience and failure in complying with the lawful orders of the Registrar and the  WP.(C).No.38904/2016-K. Government, negligence in the matter of implementing debt relief schemes, failure and wilful negligence in completing the Plants of the Matsyafed, irregularities in the distribution grants and loans, etc.; that the preliminary enquiry conducted in this connection revealed that the allegations are of substance and therefore, it was found necessary to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the Matsyafed in respect of matters specified therein under Section 65 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the complaints, on the basis of which the preliminary enquiry was conducted, were complaints master minded by the Minister of Fisheries in the present Government, who was the earlier President of the Matsyafed, on account of political rivalry; Ext.P2 order was issued with a view to supersede the managing committee of Matsyafed and that the same is, therefore, vitiated by mala fides. It is alleged that a complaint has been secured by the respondents for the said purpose from the third respondent, the President of one of the affiliated societies of the Matsyafed. It is also the case of the petitioner that the second respondent who is appointed as the inquiry officer as per Ext.P2 order has appointed several  WP.(C).No.38904/2016-K. others to conduct the inquiry as per Ext.P3 order and that the inquiry which is being conducted by the second respondent through the officers appointed by him, is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the respondents seem to have taken the stand that the inquiry is over by issuing Ext.P4 notice directing the petitioner and other members in the managing committee of the Matsyafed to offer explanations relating to the matters specified in Ext.P2 order; that it is humanly impossible to complete the inquiry ordered as per Ext.P2 within such a short span of time; that if what is pretended by them as regards the inquiry is correct, the report, if any, submitted would not be one secured in the inquiry, but one prepared at the dictates of the persons interested solely with a view to supersede the managing committee of the Matsyafed. The petitioner, therefore, challenges Exts.P2 and P3 orders in this proceedings. He also seeks a declaration that no inquiry has been conducted as provided for under Section 65 of the Act.

2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent reiterating the contents in Ext.P2 order. It is recited  WP.(C).No.38904/2016-K. in the statement that misappropriation of huge amounts, unauthorised appointments, malpractices in the construction and installation of machineries in the factories of the Matsyafed, nepotism and corruption of the members of the managing committee, etc. were revealed in the report of the preliminary enquiry conducted and it is on account of the said reason that a detailed inquiry under Section 65 of the Act has been ordered as per Ext.P2. It is also recited in the statement that since it was found that the inquiry officer alone cannot conduct the inquiry having regard to the enormous volume of the work involved, the inquiry officer was permitted to constitute a team by the first respondent and Ext.P3 order was issued by the inquiry officer in the said circumstances. According to the first respondent, Exts.P2 and P3 orders do not, therefore, suffer from any illegality.

7. The learned counsel for the third respondent contended that the Matsyafed is a mighty establishment having several offices in the State and since it was found impossible for one officer to conduct an inquiry in the nature of one ordered as  WP.(C).No.38904/2016-K. per Ext.P2 within a reasonable time, the first respondent has deployed officers to help the second respondent to conduct the inquiry by collecting the requisite information. According to the learned counsel, such deployment of officers will not go against the maxim delegatus non potest delegare.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only one officer can be appointed for an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act cannot be accepted at all. As conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, in a mighty establishment like the Matsyafed, having several offices throughout the State, an inquiry of the instant nature cannot be completed by one officer within a reasonable time. As such, if the interpretation given to the provision by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the mechanism provided for under Section 65 of the Act would fail in cases of this nature. An interpretation which would negate the intendment of the legislature and frustrate the statutory provision cannot be accepted [See Gurpreet Singh Bhullar v.  WP.(C).No.38904/2016-K. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 758]. I have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the expression 'by a person' contained in Section 65 of the Act does not preclude the competent authority from appointing more than one officer for conducting an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act. A similar view has been taken by this Court in WP.(C).No.23163 of 2009.