Section 32(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, mandates mandatory, effective consultation with the Circle Co-operative Union before supersession, requiring the Registrar to share tentative findings based on committee explanations to ensure a meaningful consultative process.

JUDGMENT :

GOPINATH P., J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P23 order superseding the Managing Committee of the Pulluvila Fishermen Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. No.F (T) 28 under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the “1969 Act”). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Ext.P23 is liable to be set aside on a short ground. It is submitted that there has been no consultation with the Circle Co-operative Union, which in this case is MATSYAFED, and therefore the impugned action is vitiated. It is submitted that a reading of Ext.P23 will indicate that the author of the impugned order proceeded on the basis that, despite seeking the views of the MATSYAFED, no reply/response was received and, therefore, an order of supersession was passed without having the benefit of the views of the Circle Co-operative Union. It is submitted that additional documents produced as Exts.P25 and P26 along with I.A.No.1 of 2026 will indicate that the letter forwarded to the MATSYAFED for seeking its views was itself vitiated and contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench in Johny Kachappally v. Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Thrissur and Others, 2022 (1) KHC 182 It is further submitted that, though the MATSYAFED had forwarded its reply as early as on 28.10.2024, Ext.P23 order was passed on 07.11.2024 without having the benefit of the said reply. It is submitted that, in the reply forwarded by the MATSYAFED, which is on record as Ext.P26 along with I.A.No.1 of 2026, the MATSYAFED had recommended that there was no ground for supersession of the Managing Committee. It is submitted that the term of the Managing Committee expired in the year 2025 and that, presently, the society is under the management of an Administrative Committee. It is submitted that, unless Ext.P23 order is set aside, the petitioners, who were members of the superseded Managing Committee, will stand disqualified from contesting the elections to be held to the Managing Committee.

2. The learned Government Pleader submits that a reading of Ext.P23 order will indicate that all the circumstances were considered by the fourth respondent, who is also the Registrar of Fishermen Co-operative Societies. It is submitted that, though the views of the MATSYAFED were sought before passing the order of supersession, the views of MATSYAFED were not available at the time of passing of Ext.P23 order. It is submitted that this is evident from a reading of Ext.P23 itself and, therefore, Ext.P23 cannot be set aside on the ground that there was no consultation. It is further submitted that the letter of the fourth respondent seeking the views of MATSYAFED is also not contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Johny Kachappally (Supra).

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that Ext.P23 order has to be set aside for non-compliance with the procedure contemplated by the provisions of Section 32 of the 1969 Act.

4. In Johny Kachappally (Supra), it was held as follows:

“9. Sub-section (1) of Section 32 confers power on the Registrar to supersede the Managing Committee of a Society by an order in writing on a finding as to the existence of any one or more of the jurisdictional grounds mentioned therein. Sub-section (2) of however provides that the Registrar shall consult the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union or the State Co- operative Union, as the case may be