IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN FRIDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 31464 OF 2018 PETITIONERS:

1 THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF PERUMPAZHUTHOOR SERVICE CO-

OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. T-262,P.O PERUMPAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT S.K. JAYACHANDRAN.

2 PERUMPAZHUTHOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.T-

262,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P. SASIKALA, P.O. PERUMPAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV P.V.BABY RESPONDENTS:

1 SHAIBU S. CHANDRA,SHINE NIVAS, MAMPUZHA KARA, PO.

PERUMPAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA - 695126, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES (G), NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695121.

3 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.

4 MARY PUSHPPAM .M,NEYYATTINKARA UNIT INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695121.

BY ADVS.

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH SR.G.P SMT. SHEEJA C.S THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Ext P1 order of enquiry and Ext P9 order extending the period of enquiry, are under challenge in this writ petition by the Society and its board of management.

2. Heard Sri.P.V.Baby learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.J.R.Prem Navaz learned counsel for 1^st respondent and Smt. Sheeja C.S the learned senior Government Pleader.

3. As against Ext P1 order for inspection the challenge is on the ground that the points for enquiry have not been specifically stated therein as is mandated under Rule 66 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. A reading of Ext P1 shows that the contention is not correct. Inspection ordered is with regard to appointments, grant of membership, sanction of loans etc.

4. As regards Ext P9 order of extension, the grounds urged are that, the extension has been ordered after expiry of the period originally fixed under Ext P1, and the extension was not on the request of the inspecting officer who is the unit inspector but has been ordered on the request of the Assistant Registrar, which is not provided for under the Rules. Reference No.2 in Ext P9 order, a communication from the Assistant Registrar, is relied on by the petitioner to raise that contention.

5. As regards the contention regarding extension of the period after its expiry, this Court has in Managing Committee of Vellamunda Service Co-operative Bank Ltd and another v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and another, 2021 (5) KLT 465 held that, post expiry extension of period is permissible.

6. As regards the second contention, the official respondents have placed on record Ext R3(c), which is the request for extension addressed by the inspecting officer to the Joint Registrar. Yet another document produced is Ext R3(d), which is reference No.2 in Ext P9 order. It is the communication from the Assistant Registrar forwarding the request of the inspecting officer to the Joint Registrar. In the light thereof, the allegation that the period was extended without request from the inspecting officer is not correct. The extension was on the request of the inspecting officer. The contentions urged by the petitioners are unsustainable.

In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

Sathish Ninan, Judge vdv APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31464/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED

18.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED

13.3.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED

5.5.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CIRCULAR NO.36/2015 DATED 1.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED

31.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RES