Judges : K.NARAYANA KURUP
PANICKER KADAVU CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Respondent
Case No : O.P. 10669 Of 1994
Decided On : 08/10/1994
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner:--- For the Respondent:---
Jurisdiction - Co-operative Societies Act - Enquiry under Section 65 - The court quashed the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies proposing to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner society, as it was issued based on instructions from the Minister for Co-operation, which influenced the decision and did not allow the Joint Registrar to exercise his statutory power independently.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a co-operative society, sought to quash an order proposing an enquiry against them under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, alleging that it was issued based on instructions from the Minister for Co-operation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order proposing the enquiry was influenced by extraneous considerations, specifically the direction from the Minister for Co-operation, and therefore could not be sustained.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order proposing the enquiry under Section 65 of the Act was valid, considering it was based on instructions from the Minister for Co-operation, which influenced the decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a statutory authority vested with discretion should exercise the same uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration or dictation from any higher authority. It emphasized that even a request from a higher authority to a subordinate authority would tantamount to a positive command, and in this case, the order was to be treated as an order to the Joint Registrar to initiate action under Section 65 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order proposing the enquiry and directed that the second respondent should pass fresh orders independently and uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration and in accordance with the law.
( 1 ) HEARD learned Govt. Pleader also.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a co-operative society represented by its Secretary. The prayer in the original petition is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P-3 and for other incidental reliefs. Ext. P-3 is an order of the second respondent Joint Registrar of Co-operative societies Kollam proposing to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner society under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and authorising the Asst. Registrar (Arbitration and Execution I) as an authorised officer to conduct the enquiry in that regard. The Asst. Registrar is directed to submit enquiry report within one month from the date of Ext. P-3.
( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner against Ext. P-3 is that it has been issued pursuant to the direction issued by the Minister for Co-operation which is referred to as item No. 1 in Ext. P-3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry under Section 65 of the Act can be conducted by the Registrar either by his own motion or on the application of l/3rd members of the society concerned. The Registrar has no jurisdiction to order an enquiry under Section 65 based on instructions issued by the Minister. In this connection, it has to be remembered that a statutory authority vested with discretion shall exercise the same uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration or dictation from any higher authority. Even a request from a higher authority to a subordinate authority will tantamount to positive command. Viewed in the above perspective, even the Indas (endorsement) of the Minister for Co-operation contained in Ext P-3 is to be treated as an order to the Joint Registrar to initiate action under Section 65 of the Act. In the above view, Ext.P-3 cannot be sustained because the Joint Registrar does not appear to have exercised his statutory power independently uninfluenced by extraneous considerations.
( 4 ) In the above view of the matter, Ext. P-3 cannot he sustained. Therefore quash
Ext. P-3 and make it clear that the second respondent will be at liberty to pass fresh
orders independently and uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration and in
accordance with law. Original Petition is disposed of.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.