Point of Law : merely being a part of the committee at some point of time and acts alleged relates to different period, collective liability cannot be fastened on a member of the committee.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is a member of the third respondent Co-operative Bank, which is a class-1 Special Grade Society. The last election to the managing committee of the bank was held on 18/11/2013 and a committee with tenure till 17/11/2018 took charge. While so, the managing committee, in its meeting held on 29/9/2016, nominated the petitioner to the casual vacancy of a managing committee member that arose on 31/8/2016, invoking section 28(1)(j) read with Rule 38(5) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. The petitioner was intimated by communication dated 1/10/2016. However, he claims that he never took charge as the managing committee member and had never attended any managing committee meeting thereafter. While so, in relation to certain transactions entered into by the managing committee, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Registrar and a report was submitted under section 66 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The committee was suspended by the Assistant Registrar by order dated 6/10/2016 and a part-time administrator took charge on 7/10/2016. The suspension of the committee and the assumption of the charge by the Part-time administrator was the subject matter of a series of litigation.

2. Regarding the misconduct allegedly committed by the Managing Committee, notices were issued under section 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to the petitioner and other members of managing committee to appear for a hearing and to show cause as to why the committee shall not be superseded. The petitioner appeared and raised a contention that he had not taken charge as the member of the Managing Committee and that he had not participated in any of its meetings. It was also pointed out by him that he was not a member of the managing committee, against which the report was submitted by the Assistant Registrar. He was nominated to the committee much later. According to the petitioner, even though the authority concluded the proceedings by removing the managing committee, he apprehended disqualification under section 32 (1) (e) of the KCS Act. While so, the committee was removed under section 32(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act.

3. Hence, claiming that the first respondent ought to have exonerated him from the charges, the petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs;

(i). Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P6 and quash the same.

(ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P6 taking note of the fact that the petitioner was never took charge as a managing committee member of the 3rd respondent society.

(iii). Declare that the committee in office after 31/8/2016 cannot be superseded under section 32 of the Act by the 1st respondent.

4. Heard both sides and examined the records.

5. Essentially, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order by which it was held that though the authority was of the opinion that the managing committee was liable to be removed, since the period of managing committee had expired on 16/11/2018, the managing committee could not be superseded. Hence, the Joint Registrar(General) concluded the proceedings by removing the managing committee and retaining the disqualification under section 32 (1)(e) of the KCS Act. The premise on which challenge was set up was that, the alleged default related to a period much prior to the nomination of the petitioner to the managing committee. The managing committee, which took the objectionable decisions was totally different from the managing committee of which the petitioner was the member. The allegations of misuse of power, mal administration, breach of trust, etc. are serious accusations which are now sought to be cast on the petitioner, which may leave unfair stigma upon the reputation and character of the petitioner, it was contended. Hence, further reliefs were sought.

6. Ext.P6 is the order of the Joint Registrar (G