P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

Ext.P11 order of the first respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The matter arises under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act').

2. The short facts relevant for decision are the following:

The petitioners are 8 out of the 12 members of the managing committee of the second respondent co-operative society which is engaged in banking business. By Ext.P11 order, the first respondent, who is exercising the powers of the Registrar under the Act in relation to the affairs of the second respondent co-operative society (`the bank') has placed the managing committee of the bank under suspension for a period of six months. It is alleged in Ext.P11 order that it is revealed in the inspection conducted in the bank under Section 66 of the Act that the bank has sanctioned and disbursed gold loans to the extent of Rs.1,70,50,394/- to three persons on the strength of fake gold ornaments for purposes other than the purposes for which gold loans could be disbursed, far in excess of the maximum limits prescribed as also the limits prescribed with reference to the quantity of the ornaments to be pledged; that the said persons being persons who are accused in similar criminal cases, the bank will not be in a position to realise the loan outstanding from them and that therefore, the members of the managing committee of the bank are responsible for the loss caused to the bank in that connection. It is also alleged in Ext.P11 order that there are no records in the bank indicating the manner in which pledged gold ornaments were sold in auction on 12.03.2016; that the managing committee of the bank has not taken any action to realize the loan outstanding of one of its members and that the bank is taking hasty steps to make appointments in its service without following the directives of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is further alleged in Ext.P11 order that though the report of inspection under Section 66 of the Act has been forwarded to the bank, the bank has not taken steps to rectify the defects noted in the report and that even now the bank is disbursing gold loans contrary to the rules approved by the Department and the circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in this connection. According to the petitioners, the first respondent has no authority to place the managing committee of a society under suspension. As regards the allegation in Ext.P11 order concerning the gold loans disbursed from the bank, the case set up by the petitioners is that the Branch Managers of the bank as also its Secretary are responsible for the sanction and disbursement of gold loans as per the approved gold loan rules; that action has already been taken against the erring officers; that proceedings have also been initiated against the loanees for realization of the loan outstanding and that therefore, the managing committee of the bank cannot be superseded or suspended on that ground. As regards the allegation in Ext.P11 order concerning the gold loan auction, the case set up is that auction of the pledged gold ornaments was conducted after giving due publicity and the amounts due to the bank as outstanding in the respective loan accounts have been realised. As regards the allegation in Ext.P11 order concerning the inaction on the part of the managing committee in initiating action for realising the outstanding in the loans of the member of the managing committee referred to in the order, the case set up is that the first respondent who is empowered to disqualify the member of the managing committee on that ground cannot suspend the managing committee for that reason. In other words, according to the petitioners, the reasons stated in Ext.P11 order are not sufficient to remove or to suspend the managing committee of the bank. The petitioners, therefore, seek orders quashing Ext.P11 order of the first respondent.

3. A statement has been filed by the first respondent in this matter. The stand