P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner is the President of Mavelikkara Taluk Co-operative Bank Ltd. ('the Bank'). The Bank is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act'). Ext.P6 notice, by which the second respondent has called upon the petitioner and other members of the managing committee of the Bank to show cause why the managing committee of the Bank shall not be superseded under Section 32 of the Act, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. It is stated by the petitioner that the managing committee of the Bank has received information during December 2016 that the staff members of Thazhakkara branch of the Bank are indulging in various irregularities and acts of misappropriation. It is also stated by the petitioner that immediately thereupon, the Manager and two staff members of the said branch were placed under suspension. It is further stated that while so, an inquiry into the affairs of the Bank has been ordered by the second respondent under Section 65 of the Act. Ext.P6 notice was issued thereafter by the second respondent stating that misappropriation to the tune of Rs.28,23,87,684/- was found in the inquiry; that the managing committee of the Bank is responsible for the loss caused to the Bank and that therefore, they are liable to be superseded. According to the petitioner, Ext.P6 notice is one issued without jurisdiction. Hence, this writ petition.

3. A statement has been filed in this matter on behalf of the second respondent.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Special Government Pleader.

5. Being conscious of the limited grounds available to sustain a challenge against a show cause notice, in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only two contentions. The first contention was that the petitioner and others were not heard on the report of inquiry relied on in the show cause notice as provided for under Rule 66(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and therefore, the same cannot be the basis of a proceedings under section 32 the Act. The second contention is that the Bank does not have any Government share holding and it is not enjoying any loan or financial assistance or guarantee from the Government or any Board or institutions constituted by the Government and therefore, the proceedings under Section 32 of the Act is hit by the third proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act.

6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that it is not necessary to give notice of the report of inquiry under Section 65 of the Act to the members of the managing committee of the Bank before it is acted upon. It was also contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that the Bank is enjoying financial assistance and guarantee from the Government in various forms and therefore, its managing committee is not entitled to the benefit of the third proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act.

7. The first issue to be considered is whether a report in an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act in respect of which notice has not been given to the members of the managing committee of the society under Rule 66(5) of the Rules can be acted upon for the purpose of the proceedings under Section 32 of the Act. It is seen that the said issue has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Aravindakshan Nair (2010 (3) KLT 11). It is held in the said case that since separate opportunity of hearing is provided for in the statute wherever action is contemplated based on a report of inquiry under Section 65 of the Act, the contention that report of inquiry under Section 65 of the Act cannot be acted upon without compliance of the provisions contained in Rule 66(5) of the Rules cannot be accepted. It is clarified by the Division Bench in the said case that the opportunity of hearing provided for under Rule 66(5) of the Rules is only for the purpose of ordering