1. The President of Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for short) has filed this Writ Petition praying to quash Ext.P11 order passed by the 1st respondent, in exercise of his powers under S.32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. Facts of the case are that election to the Board of Directors of the Bank was held in November 2004 and the Board of Directors, of which the petitioner is the President, assumed office on 06.11.2004. According to the petitioner, soon after they assumed office, the 3rd respondent filed complaint, (produced as Annexure I to I.A.No.12926/07) to the 1st respondent making allegations against the Board of Directors. On the basis of the said complaint, the 1st respondent ordered an enquiry under S.65 of the Act. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted Ext.P4 report, recommending a detailed enquiry under S.65 of the Act. In pursuance to the recommendation in Ext.P4 report, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 order, appointing the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry under S.65 of the Act.

3. Challenging Ext.P1 order, the Board of Directors of the Bank filed W.P.(C) No.15094 of 2007 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that in case there is any proposal to supersede the Committee, the procedure contemplated under S.32 of the Act will be followed. It is stated that accordingly an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the 2nd respondent, copy of which was not served on the petitioner. However, along with the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, a copy of the report has been produced in this Writ Petition as Ext.R1(a). Based on Ext.R1(a) report, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P5 show cause notice under S.32(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the committee shall not be superseded under S.32 of the Act for the nine charges which have been levelled to justify the proposed action. On receipt of Ext.P5, Ext.P8 reply was submitted by the petitioner.

4. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.19514 of 2007 challenging Ext.P5 show cause notice. That Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment, directing that it will be open to the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent, raise his objections to the notice and that he will also be heard in person. It was further directed that a copy of the final order will be served on the petitioner and that if the final order is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be implemented for two weeks from the date of service of a copy thereof. Against the directions in Ext.P7 judgment, the 1st respondent filed W.A. No.1967 of 2007, which was dismissed as per Ext.P9 judgment. It would appear that, in the meanwhile, in compliance with S.32(2) of the Act, the 1st respondent consulted with the Circle Co-operative Union, Thiruvalla, which by Ext.P10 dated 06.07.2007, recommended against any proceedings under S.32 of the Act against the petitioner. However, rejecting Ext.P10, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P11 order dated 14.09.2007, superseding the committee and it is seeking to quash Ext.P11 order, this Writ Petition is filed.

5. The main contentions raised by the petitioner are that while passing Ext.P11 order, the 1st respondent has not complied with the provisions of the Act and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short). It was also contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Yet another contention raised was that the grounds on which the committee is ordered to be superseded, are acts/omissions which were committed by the previous committee in office and that the committee presently in office, cannot be superseded for that reason.

6. Among the contentions that are urged, I feel I should first deal with the con