Point of Law: Provisions of sub-s.(2) of S.32 of the Act have been violated. Hence order was liable to be set aside on the second ground mentioned by the learned Single Judge.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.6.2019 in W.P.(C) No.14689 of 2019. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as they appear in the writ petition.

2. Petitioner was the President of the Managing Committee of Thumboor Service Co-operative Bank Limited (the Bank), a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act). On 30.04.2019, the jurisdictional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies exercising the powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Act in respect of the Bank issued Ext.P7 notice to the petitioner and other members of the Managing Committee of the Bank invoking sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act calling upon them to show cause why they shall not be removed from office. It is alleged in the said notice that the petitioner and other members of the Managing Committee have illegally and without authority expended amounts much more than what was sanctioned for construction of a few buildings; that they are not releasing gold ornaments pledged with the Bank to the borrowers on liquidation of their liabilities; that they have splurged in buying expensive gifts for the members of the Bank; that they are disbursing interests for deposits over and above the rates prescribed by the Registrar and that they are engaging provisional employees for the operation of the Bank. The petitioner and others offered explanations to the various charges levelled against them in Ext.P7 notice. Ext.P8 is the explanation offered by the petitioner to the charges. The Joint Registrar, thereupon, afforded to the petitioner and others an opportunity of hearing and later issued Ext.P11 order superseding the Managing Committee of the Bank. Ext.P11 order was under challenge in the writ petition, among others, on the ground that the Joint Registrar has not consulted properly the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union concerned before passing Ext.P11 order as required in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding, among others, that the sole pertinent requirement as regards consultation is that the consultees must have known of the tentative findings of the Joint Registrar and the action proposed by him on the basis of the same; that the Joint Registrar has informed the consultees the tentative findings and the action proposed by him as per his communication dated 21.05.2019 and that the consultees have issued their unmistakable opinion, agreeing to the proposal made by the Joint Registrar. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge and hence, this appeal.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Senior Government Pleader.

5. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Jose Kuttiyani v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, AIR 1982 Kerala 12 and Sahadevan v. Padmanabhan, 2004 (1) KLT 192, as also the decision of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach, (2013) 7 SCC 25, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the contemplation of the statute as regards the consultation provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act is that the opinion of the consultees on the supersession of the Managing Committee of a Society shall be an informed one and that an informed opinion on supersession could be obtained from the consultees only if they are informed of the tentative findings rendered by Joint Registrar on the various charges levelled against the managing committee. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the Joint Registrar has not informed the consultees of his tentative findings on the various charges levelled against the Managing Committee and the consultation made before the Joint Registrar arrived at his tentative findings is bad in law and would not satisfy the requirements