Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. Investment in land and building is the common channel for diversion of funds of cooperative societies and when the same is done detrimental to the interest of the society, society goes bankrupt, though individuals in management, mainly elected managing committee members and officers of the society may turn to be big beneficiaries. In order to check and prevent misappropriation of funds of co-operative societies in acquisition of land and building, the Legislature in their wisdom thought of making specific regulations requiring previous sanction in writing from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before the society makes investment of it's funds in land and building. This provision is contained in Rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules made under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The first respondent-society entered into agreement with the appellant for purchase of 4 cents of land on the road side at the rate of Rs.27.5 lakhs per cent through a written agreement under which appellant was given an advance of Rs.10 lakhs. Though advance sanction from Registrar was not obtained before executing the purchase agreement as required under Rule 54, the managing committee before executing the sale deed pursuant to the agreement with the appellant applied to the Joint Registrar for permission in terms of the said Rule 54. However, on a detailed consideration of the deal between the appellant and the first respondent-society, the Joint Registrar held that the proposed purchase of property, in the first place, is at exorbitant price i.e much above the prevalent market price and that the deal will adversely affect the interest of the society in as much as it has it's own land for construction of office and the diversion of public deposit will lead to heavy interest burden to the society. Through a detailed order the Joint Registrar declined permission for purchase of appellant's land by the society. The society turned wise through the findings of the Joint Registrar who rejected their application for permission and they, therefore, accepted his orders thereby backing out of the agreement executed between them and the appellant for purchase of latter's property. This led to the appellant filing writ petition before the learned Single Judge challenging the Joint Registrar's order issued under Rule 54 which is produced as Ext.P4 in the W.P.(C). The learned Single Judge, however, upheld the findings of the Joint Registrar against which the Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and Ext.P4.

2. We have heard Adv. Sri. P.V. Baby appearing for the appellant, Adv. Sri. K.G. Anil Babu appearing for the first respondent-society and Special Government Pleader Sri. D. Somasundaram appearing for the remaining respondents. We are told that the society accepted Ext.P4 order issued by the Joint Registrar and has filed suit before the Sub Court for recovery of advance of Rs.10 lakhs paid to the appellant. Even though writ petition is not maintainable for specific relief, that is for direction to the society to purchase appellant's property in terms of the sale agreement, challenge against Ext.P4 order is rightly entertained by the Single Judge in writ proceedings. We, therefore, proceed to consider all the contentions raised in the Writ Appeal on merit. Besides, we feel obliged to explain the scope of Rule 54 because investment in land and building is one unique device adopted by many elected managing committees of co-operative societies to swindle the funds of societies for personal benefits leading to absolute ruin of societies handling public funds sourced both by way of share capital from members and mostly raised through public deposits.

3. Before proceeding to consider the facts of the case and the legality and propriety of the order issued by the Joint Registrar declining permission under Rule 54, we feel the object and scope of the Rule has to be considered first and for easy ref