1. The petitioner describing himself as the President of the Board of Directors of the second respondent co-operative bank, challenges Ext.P9 by which the committee led by him has been superseded in exercise of authority under S.32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the "Act".

2. The impugned decision is challenged in the Writ Petition as one passed in total violation of the statutory provisions and disregarding the observations contained in Ext.P5 judgment of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner and others against Ext.P4 judgment in an earlier Writ Petition filed by them challenging the issuance of notice under S.32(1) which, ultimately, has now led to the impugned proceedings.

3. Ext.P5 is challenged on the specific ground that the said order has been issued by a person who was not the one who heard the petitioner and the other members of the superseded committee. It is contended that they were heard by Sri.Omanakuttan, Joint Registrar pursuant to Ext.P2 notice and the said officer forwarded the tentative opinion following the hearing, to the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union in the course of consultation; however that, the impugned order has been issued by Sri.B.Sivan Piliai, who holds the additional charge of Joint Registrar and is in the position of a Deputy Registrar. It is stated that Sri.Sivan Pillai did not hear the petitioner.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that the supersession is a tentative action and would amount to disqualification of the members of the superseded committee from contesting in future elections. The impugned order is, therefore, characterized as stigmatic and hence, it is absolutely essential that the person, who heard the matter should have passed the order and the change in officer could have only led to a rehearing and a decision de novo by a person who actually hears.

5. The further contention of the petitioner is that all the actions attributed to the committee for the purpose of the impugned supersession are attributable exclusively to Sri. M.V. Sasikumaran Nair, the former President of the committee and the observation in Ext.P5 judgment that such objection should also be looked into, has been ignored while passing the impugned order.

6. The proceedings initiated under S.32 is pursuant to a report under S.65 and therefore, it is contended that the first respondent was duty bound to proceed under R.66(5) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter, the "Rules" and no major defect having been noticed in the constitution, working or financial condition of the society, no action could have followed under S.32 evenin the light of S.65(6) of the Act.

7. The process of consultation is also impeached. It is contended that though tentative opinion was forwarded to the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union, the impugned order has been issued by stating that those establishments did not give their replies in response to the notice, which statement is alleged as wrong. It is contended that to the knowledge of the petitioner, the committee of the financing bank had met and resolved to inform disagreement in superseding the committee on the ground that the allegations against the committee do not justify the action of supersession.

8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. It is submitted that following Ext.P1 judgment, Ext.P2 notice was issued to all the petitioners in W.P.(C).18335/2008 stating that the earlier replies to the notice dated 24.2008 had not been satisfactory and the allegations in that notice have also to be answered. It is pointed out that a further opportunity of hearing was afforded on 9.2008 on which day all the parties were present. The petitioner, as the President of the committee, gave evidence and the same was recorded and signed by all the members present. The petitioner and six other members submitted Ext.P3 reply to Ext.P2 notice. The