M. Ramachandran, J.

The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Wayanad, by Ext.Pl dated 30.12.2003, had directed the President and members of the Director Board of the Wayanad Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank to show cause as to why action under S.32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act were not to be taken against them. A notice of hearing had also been offered. The complaint is that in spite of satisfactory explanation being given, by Ext. P2 dated 27.1.2004, the committee had been superseded by Ext. P3 order passed on 12.2.2004 and because of external interference. This has been subjected to challenge in these proceedings.

2. The petitioner, who is the President of the superseded Director Board, submits that the steps taken were vitiated by mala fides, without authority of law and especially were not maintainable or sustainable. The alternate remedy of appeal to the Government was not expeditious, especially taking notice of the circumstance that there was an ulterior attempt for arranging for sending a nominee of the choice of the Government to the ensuing election to the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The surreptitious attempt was to see that the nominee of the ruling party was enabled to go over as the representative of the institution. This Court had not granted any interlocutory orders, but had held that the voting and contest of the additional 4th respondent and also the declaration of the results of the election will be subject to further orders to be passed in these proceedings.

3.The principal submissionof the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.P.C.Sasidharan was that the circumstances indicated of mala fides and the attempt was to supersede a newly elected committee in respect of the alleged lapses committed by the erstwhile Committee. It is stated that the petitioner, who represents the new Committee, had assumed office on 18.5.2003 and every one of the faults and lapses pointed out were those pertaining to the period during which the past Committee was in office. The previous committee had assumed office on 27.6.1998 and had held office for a period of five years up to 17.5.2003. It is also submitted that there was no consultation, as required under S. 32(2) of the Act, with the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union and this too vitiated the orders.

4.We may look into the allegations as above and the background in which the supersession orders came and also whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

5.The new committee had assumed office only on 18.5.2003. The petitioner submits that the show cause notice (Ext.Pl) positively indicated that none of the allegations could be connected with the new managing committee. When show cause notice had been received, the Committee was almost certain that there was an attempt for supersession and a Writ Petition had been filed as W.P.(C).No.3428 of 2004 and this Court had observed that there could have been any justification for the apprehension shown. But the worst fears had come true. It is pointed out that orders had come overlooking such observations.

6. At this juncture, we may examine the question as to whether the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner, that the members of the new committee could not have been proceeded against for the misdeeds of the past committee, is acceptable. If that be so, there could be an end of the matter.

7. At the outset, I may observe that this point cannot be answered in the abstract, as it will be thoroughly unsafe. There cannot be any general declaration divorced from the specific circumstances of each case. There may be a case where the Director Board is constituted by persons in diverse patterns. For example, if the strength is 12, there can be one new member, and eleven old members, and in extreme cases there could be eleven new members and one old member. The texture of the Board as above therefore may not be a safe