Petitioner bank challenges Ext.P-9 order, by which the 1st respondent Joint Registrar rejected the request of the petitioner for sanction to purchase anew vehicle.

2. Petitioner bank is having its Head Office at Eraviperoor, Thiruvalla and has got 15 branches. The total deposits of the petitioner bank are more than Rs.100 crores and the share capital is Rs.212.5 lakh. The staff strength of the petitioner bank is 17, including two drivers. The bank has got two vehicles, one jeep and one car. Since the car started having mechanical problems, the Managing Committee of the petitioner bank decided to sell the car and to purchase a new vehicle as per resolution dated 27-5-2006. The resolution was forwarded to the 1st respondent with a covering letter requesting for sanction to purchase a new vehicle. The 1st respondent by Ext.P-6 order directed the petitioner not to proceed with the steps for the purchase of the new vehicle pending disposal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging that the Board of Directors of the petitioner bank has resolved to purchase a new vehicle against the conditions stipulated in the circulars of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and without seeking prior approval of the Joint Registrar. Therefore, the petitioner bank had approached this Court by filing W.P.C.No.15218/2006. This Court directed the 1st respondent Joint Registrar to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders. The 1st respondent after considering the report of the Assistant Registrar and after hearing the petitioner bank as well as the 2nd respondent rejected the request of the petitioner bank for purchase of a new car.

3. A counter-affidavit for and on behalf of the 1st respondent has been filed. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that “no sanction was obtained from the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Pathanamthitta for the purchase or disposal of the remaining vehicles”. It is also stated that “it was established that the Bank is perpetuating gross negligence of the law and directions of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and is acting against the provisions of the sub rules prevailing in the bank.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner bank submits that one of the vehicles was sold, as it started having mechanical problems and consequent upon the sale of the vehicle, it became difficult for the officers and staff who had been using the vehicle for recovery of arrears from defaulters. The learned counsel also submits that since one of the vehicles was sold, it has to be replaced with another vehicle and therefore objection against replacement of the existing vehicle is without any basis. The learned counsel further submits that the 1st respondent is not empowered to consider any complaint filed by a third party like the 2nd respondent and the report now received from the Assistant Registrar is not in accordance with any of the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or the Rules. It is submitted that in Ext.P-9 the 1st respondent had considered only the audit report of the bank for the period 2003-04 to find that the bank is running at a loss. It is also submitted that the reasons stated by the 1st respondent in Ext.P-9 order to reject the request of the petitioner bank is on extraneous consideration.

5. Learned Government Pleader submits that the 1st respondent had passed Ext.P-9 order on the basis of the report received from the Assistant Registrar and as per Sections 66 and 66A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the 1st respondent has power to issue such order.

6. The question to be decided in this writ petition is with regard to the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to pass Ext.P-9 order.

7. Rule 54 of the Co-operative Societies Rules stipulates that the society may, with the previous sanction in writing of the Registrar, invest the whole or any portion of its funds in the purchase or lease of land on the acquisition, construction or renewal of any building th