Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The facts involved in this appeal certainly presents a rather unusual scenario.

2. The super session of a Managing Committee of a Society, ordered by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies invoking the powers under Section 32 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for brevity), appears to have been set aside, in the judgment impugned herein, on the basis of a subsequent order issued by the competent authorities in surcharge proceedings against the members of the superceded Committee, initiated under Section 68 of the Act, wherein all the allegedly proven irregularities and acts of defiance of the Committee against lawful orders of the authorities were offered post factum ratification and imprimatur. The learned Single Judge, therefore, took the view that since the allegations that led to the super session have been subsequently ratified, albeit under an independent surcharge proceedings, the order of super session itself had lost its foundational justification and the said order was consequently quashed.

3. The appellant challenges the impugned judgment, inter alia, on the specific assertion that the order of super session cannot be set aside on the basis of a subsequent order in surcharge proceedings, which according to his contention, is an independent and unconnected proceedings.

4. Before we proceed to examine the contentions in the appeal, a sylloge of the unexpendable facts need to be stated, which is as under:

5. The appellant is the third respondent in W.P.(C)No. 24534/2013. This writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge along with three other writ petitions, all involving challenge and contentions relating to super session of and consequent fresh elections ordered to be conducted to the Managing Committee of a Society by name Angamaly Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which has been arrayed as the seventh respondent in this appeal.

6. The appellant states that respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal were the original members of the managing committee of the said Society and that the first respondent was its President. According to the appellant, on account of certain very grievous allegations made against committee, steps were taken to supersede it, which finally led to Exhibit P3 order dated 22.08.2012, by which the Registrar of Co-operative Societies superseded the committee. He further says that even while the proceedings for super session was continuing, an election notification was published on 26.07.2012, notifying the elections to the Society to be held on 09.09.2012.

7. In the meanwhile, the order of super session of the Managing Committee, namely Exhibit P3, came into effect on 22.08.2012, consequent to which the nominations of respondents 1 to 5 were rejected, since they were found statutorily disqualified under the provisions of Section 32(1) (e) of the Act. It transpires that these actions led to several writ petitions being filed before this Court, one challenging the super session, the other challenging the rejection of nominations and the third challenging the election notification on various grounds. The order of super session was challenged by respondents 1 to 5, which culminated in a judgment dated 17.12.2016 in W.P.(C)No.29838/2012, wherein the order was upheld. The primary contentions in the said writ petition was that as the committee had already resigned from office on 18.08.2012, the order of super session was uncalled for since the committee was not in existence. A learned Judge of this Court found that it is not permissible that the members of the committee can be allowed to resign from office in such manner so as to defeat the purposes for which the proceedings under Section 32 had been invoked, especially because notices under Section 32(1) had already been and served on the committee members. It appears that based on this judgment, Exhibit P4 final order for super session was issued, which has been challenged by respondents 1 to 5 in t