The petitioner, a Co-Operative Bank, having been classified as class-I society, filed Ext.P3 appeal before the first respondent against the audit certificate issued by the 3rd respondent. In fact, the petitioner is aggrieved by certain directions in Ext.P1 audit certificate. The first respondent has, however, rejected the appeal through Ext.P4 order, holding that there is no provision in the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act ('the Act' for brevity) to maintain an appeal against Ext.P1 audit certificate.

2. The petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of rejection of the appeal at the threshold, filed what is said to be Ext.P5 revision, for which, even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no specific provision. Be that as it may, once again, the first respondent passed Ext.P6 order reiterating its earlier stand that in terms of Section 83 (1)(j), no appeal is maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that on neither of the occasions--while passing Ext.P4 order or while passing Ext.P6 order--has the petitioner been given an opportunity to put forth his contentions concerning the maintainability of the statutory appeal. Expressed differently, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both Exts.P4 and P6 suffer from the vice of non- compliance with the principles of natural justice.

4. Taking me through the statutory provisions, the learned counsel has submitted that Section 63(3)(6) and (7), read with Section 3 of the Act, amply provides for an appeal against audit certificate in terms of Section 83(1)(j) of the Act. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that as per Section 83(1)(j), an appeal shall lie against any order made by any person exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar. It is the singular contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has, in fact, exercised the powers of a Registrar while issuing Ext.P1 audit memorandum and certificate.

5. Thus, on the twin grounds that there has been violation of the observance of the principles of natural justice, and that the statutory appeal despite being eminently maintainable, the first respondent rejected the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought the intervention of this Court.

6. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that the appeal is not an inherent power of any court or Tribunal, much less of a quasi-judicial authority. According to him, there ought to have been a specific provision to maintain an appeal against any order of a primary authority. According to him, the 4th respondent has issued Ext.P1 audit memorandum and certificate under Section 63 of the Act in his own right, but not as a delegate of the Registrar. The learned Government Pleader, drawing my attention to Section 63 (7) of the Act, contends that the 3rd respondent, while issuing Ext.P1 audit memorandum and certificate, may have been under the administrative control of the Registrar, but not acted as a delegate of the Registrar.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P1 as a delegate of the 1st respondent?

(2) Whether the Act or the Rules made thereunder provide for an appeal against Ext.P1?

(3) Whether the respondents have infracted the principles of natural justice in issuing Ext.P4 & P7; if so, what are the consequences?

In re: Issue No.1:

8. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on Sections 3 and 63 (3) (6) and (7) of the Act, it is apposite to examine the same, which reads as under:

Section 3:

3. Registrar (1) The Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State. (2) The Government may by general or special order confer on any person al