Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is foiled against the judgment in W.P. (C). No. 34948 of 2003, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the additional 4th respondent in the Writ Petition. Respondents herein are the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition.

2. The 1st respondent P.K. Padmanabhan, President, Pattancherry Service Co-operative Bank Limited filed the Writ petition challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Palakkad, superseding the Committee of the Pattancherry Service Co-Operative Bank Limited under Sec.32 of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed Ext.P8 order and directed the Administrator to hand over charge to the superseded committee forthwith. It was also made clear that the quashing of Ext.P8 order would not stand in the way of the joint Registrar passing fresh order in accordance with law. If so advised.

3. The learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P3 order mainly on two grounds, viz, (1) the joint Registrar while passing Ext.P8 order exercising the power under Section 32 of the Act did not fairly consider the contentions raised on behalf of the committee in Ext.P7 reply to Ext.P6 show cause notice and did not give reasons for rejecting the explanations and objections contained in Ext.P7; and (2) before passing Ext.P8 order, the Joint Registrar did not comply with the requirement of consulting the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-Operative Union as required under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 32 of the Act.

4. In reply to Ext.P6 show cause notice issued under Sub-Sec.(1) of Sec.32 of the Act, Ext.P7 explanation was submitted by the president of the Bank on behalf of the Committee. Ext.P7 contained the explanations for the irregularities alleged in Ext.P6 and the objections to the proposal to supersede the Committee. However in Ext.P8 order, the joint Registrar did not refer to such explanations and objections or discuss the merits of such explanations or objections or state why the explanations and objections were not acceptable. Therefore, the learned Single judges was right in holding that the Joint Registrar had not fairly considered the contentions raised on behalf of the Committee and had not given reasons for the finding that the charges against the Committee stood proved. In our view, the joint Registrar was legally bound to deal with every explanation and objection stated by the Committee, to discuss the merits of such explanations and objections and to record the reasons for rejecting such explanations and objections. Since the Joint Registrar failed to do so, we hold that there was no fair or proper consideration by him in this case. Hence. Ext.P8 order was rightly quashed on the first ground mentioned by the learned Single Judge.

5. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 32 provides that the Registrar shall consult the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union or the State Co-operative Union as the case may be before passing an order under sub-section (1) of Sec.32. It is seen from Ext.P6 that a copy of the notice dated 24.09.2003 issued under sub-section (1) of Sec.32 of the Act was sent to the General Manager, Palakkad District Co-operative Bank (Financing Bank) and the Secretary, Co-operative Union, Palakkad, Apart from sending a copy of the notice, no further request or direction was made. Ext.P8 order of the joint Registrar shows that the views of the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union were not received on time and therefore, the Joint Registrar proceeded on the assumption that they had nothing to say in the matter. Learned Single Judge, relying on the decisions in Jose Kuttiyani v. Registrar, Co-Operative Societites (AIR 1982 Ker.12) and Elakkal Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala [1997 (2) K.L.T. 85] held that the mere sending of the copy of the show case notice to the consultees would not s