The main legal point established in the judgment is that under R.24 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, a person is entitled to a copy of an enquiry report if it is essential for redressing grievances, and the refusal to provide the report can be deemed irrational and arbitrary.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The Board of Directors of a Co-operative Society has approached this Court with this Writ Petition challenging Ext. P3. By Ext. P3, the respondent declined the request made by the President of the petitioner Board of Directors to send a copy of the enquiry report under S.66 of the Co-operative Societies Act. During 1995 certain appointments were made in the Co-operative Society managed by the petitioner. On the basis of a letter, an enquiry under S.66 had been conducted and based on the findings in the enquiry a notice was issued to the petitioner to cancel all the appointments made and to make an application within 15 days of the receipt of Ext. P1. Ext. P1 is based on certain findings in the report. Therefore, the petitioner made Ext. P2 application in terms of R.24 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 to furnish a copy of the report, expressing his readiness to pay the necessary fees. That application is rejected in Ext. P3 stating that a report under S.66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act cannot be given.

2. The petitioner submits that when a report is relied on against the petitioner, necessarily, in order to submit an explanation, such report shall be furnished to the petitioner. Otherwise he will not get full and fair opportunity to explain the alleged irregularities in Ext. P1. Therefore, Ext. P3 is illegal.

3. It is contended by the Government Pleader citing the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Sudarsanan (1997 (2) KLT 522) that furnishing of the report is not a part of the principles of natural justice and therefore, there is no reason at all to furnish the report as requested in Ext. P2 and therefore,! ,*I. Vi & tail and reasonable, it is further contended that the finding contained in the said report relied onto initiate action against the petitioner has been stated in detail in Ext. P1 show cause notice itself. Therefore, Ext. P1 contains the necessary details and on that reason also no copy of the report need be given to the petitioner. He also cited the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Sudarsanan (1997 (2) KLT 522).

4. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that as per R.24 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, he has entitlement to the copy of the report. The said rule provides that any person applying to the Registrar with necessary prescribed fee shall be entitled to supply of such copy if he has satisfied the Registrar that he requires to seek redress in any matter in which he is aggrieved or for any other lawful purpose. The documents include a report as is seen from the note under sub-r.(3) of R.24. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied a copy of the report, the petitioner submits.

5. The decision reported in M.M. Abdul Rahiman & Ors. v. Joint Registrar and Ors. (1993 (2) KLJ 197) is with regard to a show cause notice regarding super session of the Board of Directors of a Co-operative Society and not to one directing to cancel the appointment made by the Board of Directors as in this case. The decision reported in State of Kerala v. Sudarsanan (1997 (2) KLT 522) is one relating to a show cause notice as a prelude to super session of the Board of Directors. Ofcourse, that was based on a report under S.66 of the Co-operative Societies Act. But it has to be noticed that in neither of these decisions the impact of R.24 is considered. R.24 had not been noticed when the said decisions were rendered. R.24 provides for a procedure for applying for copies and furnishing of such copies in case the applicant is able to satisfy the Registrar that he requires such documents to seek redress in any matter in which he is aggrieved or for any other lawful purpose. Ext. P2 application was made citing the said rule. Therefore, it was incumbent on the Joint Registrar to apply his mind as to whether he has satisfied to grant the document supplied for. Such a consideration is not borne out by Ext. P3 order. What Ext. P3 order contains is that the report