The authority must provide opportunity for hearing post-inquiry before enforcing actions under cooperative society regulations.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 order issued in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the '1969 Act').

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the order is liable to be set aside, as the proceedings under Section 66 of the 1969 Act, which forms the basis for passing Ext.P3 order, were completed without jurisdiction and beyond the time stipulated for completing the proceedings. It is submitted that when the time for completing the proceedings under of the 1969 Act has been extended without authority, and after the expiry of the time originally fixed for completing the proceedings, the consequential report cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that consequently, any proceedings initiated on the basis of such a report also cannot be sustained, and therefore Ext.P3 order is liable to be set aside.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P3 order. It is pointed out that the writ petition is filed by the Managing Committee of the Society and not by any individual member. Further, it is pointed out that going by the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Kudayathoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), 2022 (3) KLT 222 (FB), the petitioner cannot challenge the proceedings at this stage, and it is for the petitioner to raise all contentions as and when a further show cause notice is issued under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the 1969 Act. It is pointed out that when such a show cause notice is issued, the same will be issued to the members of the Committee, and they alone will be entitled to challenge the proceedings.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having perused the Full Bench order of this Court in Kudayathoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited (supra), I am of the view that the learned Government Pleader is right in contending that the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P3 order at this stage. Paragraph No.17 of the order dated 07.04.2022 of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kudayathoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited (supra) reads thus:

“17. As noted, Section 66 of the Act empowers the Registrar, on his own motion or on the application of a creditor of a society, to inspect or direct any person authorised by him by order in writing in its behalf to inspect the books of the society. Similarly, Section 65 empowers the Registrar, on his own motion or on any of the circumstances mentioned in clauses (b) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 65, to order an inquiry by himself or by a person authorised by an order in writing into the constitution, working and financial condition of the society, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so. Section 65 also empowers the Registrar to supersede the Managing Committee of a society in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 32, if any major defect in the constitution or working or financial condition of the society is noticed in an inquiry under Section 65(1). Section 68 provides that if in the course of an inquiry or inspection it is found that any person who is or was entrusted with any organisation or management of co-operative societies or who is or has at any time been an officer or an employee of the society has made any payment contrary to the Act or the Rules or the bye-laws or has caused to any loss or damage in the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence or mismanagement or has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belo