IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J.
Board Of Management Of The Kandala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies(G) –Respondent
WP(C) No. 20735 of 2022
Decided on : 29-11-2022
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Sections 32 and 65 - Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rule 36 - Whether opportunity of being heard provided for in Rule 66(5) of Rules has application to every action - Held, Applying law laid down in referred cases to this case petitioners have approached this Court at show cause notice stage and they have ample opportunity to explain their cause before statutory authority - Only question is whether respondents have followed procedure prescribed by law for issuance of show cause notice - As held in it cannot be insisted that notice ought to have been sent by registered post - Petitioners have admittedly received notice - Question remains whether petitioners are being afforded a meaningful hearing in sense that copy of enquiry report that was served on them is not complete in terms of Rule 66 - There is no case for respondents that copy of annexures in report were served on petitioner - Order Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
The Board of Management of the 2nd petitioner Society and the Society have preferred this writ petition. They are aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This litigation has a chequered career. The Society had, in its meeting held on 25.11.2002, decided on the feeder categories with respect to the service under the Society. The decision was approved on 30.1.2004 by the 1st respondent, as seen from Ext.P13. On 22.8.2009, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P14 notice to the Society seeking a report regarding the appointment of persons without sanction for the post. The Society submitted Ext.P15 explanation stating that appointments have been made only for the posts 1st permitted in the approved feeder category. Thereafter, the respondent permitted appointment to the post of Security Personnel as per Ext.P16 dated 3.3.2010. On 6.2.2012, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 order directing an enquiry under Section 65 of the Act into six aspects specified in the notice. The notice was challenged in W.P.(C)No.4403 of 2012 by the President of the Society and by Ext.P2 order dated 27.2.2022, this Court directed status quo to be maintained. It is submitted that the said order was in force till 27.10.2021 on which day this Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, closed the writ petition in view of the order in Contempt Case No.1468 of 2021. Ext.P4 is the order in the Contempt Case, which was closed recording paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent requesting to withdraw Ext.P1 order and the subsequent order dated 4.8.2021 produced as Ext.P3 in this writ petition, with liberty to issue fresh enquiry order and requesting to exonerate the contemnor from further proceedings in the matter. It can be seen from Ext.P3 that it had been issued based on the same set of facts, which led to Ext.P1.
2. During the pendency of W.P.(C)No.4403 of 2012, the 1st respondent had issued orders including the 2nd petitioner Society as a Class I society under Rule 36 Appendix III of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The Bank is also running a hospital by the name Kandala Co-operative Hospital as a separate unit of the Bank for which sub-rules were approved by the 1st respondent by Ext.P18 order dated 2.6.2015. It is stated that the Bank has constructed various buildings and purchased vehicles with proper valuation certificates and sanctions. The documents relating to the same have been produced as Exts.P19 to P21. After Ext.P5 judgment, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P12 order dated 24.1.2021 directing an enquiry under Section 65 of the Act. According to the petitioners, even though the Enquiry Officer was convinced that the allegations in Ext.P12 were not correct, Ext.P6 report was filed with a finding as to certain irregularities. It can be seen from Ext.P6 that the enquiries were ordered into appointments made allegedly without sanction, failure to re-classify the Bank with effect from 20.11.2012, making unauthorised constructions, the improper sanction of loan to Maranelloor Ksheerolpadaka Society, apart from aspects like financial position of the Society, the grant of loans, conduct of MDS, proceeding on deposits, giving excessive interest on deposits causing loss to the Bank and regarding the constitution, functioning, administration and financial stage of the Society. According to the petitioners, Ext.P6 was not communicated to the President or the Committee members, and their explanations were also not sought. It is also stated that pages 1 to 3 of Ext.P6 were not communicated to the 2nd petitioner along with Ext.P6.
3. On 11.5.2022, the 2nd petitioner submitted Ext.P7 explanation to Ext.P6 report pointing out that the contents of Ext.P6 are not correct and that the Bank has been functioning satisfactorily for the past several years. It is also requested that further action based on the Section 65 re
Ellakkal Service -Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala 1997 (2) KLT 85
Reji K.Joshy & Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors. 2022 (3) KHC 317
Right to challenge inspection findings arises only post-show cause notice under Section 68(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, ensuring fairness in proceedings.
Petitioners must raise their contentions before the competent authority upon issuance of show cause notice under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, as they cannot contest the inquiry report....
Due process under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act requires notice and hearing prior to appointing a new Enquiry Officer after an adverse report.
Duty of the officers and chief executive of a society and the nature of offences and penalties mentioned in [sub-section (4A)] shall be applicable to this sub-section also.
Procedure for conduct of inquiry and inspection - A person can be proceeded against and vested with liability only if an objective assessment of evidence and materials available on record leads to ir....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the enquiry under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act can only be against individuals and not a committee, in line with the ....
Granting prosecution sanction requires careful consideration of evidence, not merely formal compliance; relevant findings from prior inquiries can substantively justify the decision.
If any major defect in the constitution, working or financial condition of the society is found in the inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Act, the Joint Registrar is empowered even to initiate steps ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.