The Joint Registrar lacks authority to direct a Liquidator in asset sales of a liquidated Society, especially at below-market values.

1. This case throws up a rivetting question as to whether the Registrar / Joint Registrar of Co - operative Societies can direct the Liquidator, appointed to manage and dispose of the assets of a Society ordered to be wound up under the provisions of S.71 of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act, to sell its assets in a particular manner, especially at a lower value, to another Society, so as to help and support the latter.

2. The petitioners, who claim to be the shareholders of the 4th respondent - Society, has approached this Court impugning Ext.P1 order issued by the Joint Registrar of Co - operative Societies, as per which, the Liquidator appointed for winding up the said Society has been directed to sell one of its properties to the 5th respondent - Society at its notified Fair Value.

3. The petitioners say that Ext.P1 order is illegal and incompetent, since the Joint Registrar has no jurisdiction or power to dictate to the Liquidator or to direct him as to how and in what manner the properties of the 4th respondent - Society are to be sold; adding that, in any event of the matter, the direction in Ext.P1 to sell the property at its Fair Value, which is much lower than the market value, is illegal and unlawful.

4. In response of the afore submissions made by Sri. C. Unnikrishnan - learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. P. C. Sasidharan - learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent - Society, began his submissions by asserting that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain this writ petition, because they are neither members nor in any manner connected with the affairs of the 4th respondent - Society. After saying so, he explained that the reason why the Joint Registrar has issued Ext.P1 is that his client is a fledgling and struggling Society, without any property of their own nor with the fiscal resources to buy the property of the 4th respondent - Society at its market value. He says that the 5th respondent - Society is interested in the property concerned because it houses a building and since they have no such of their own, this will satisfy their infrastructural requirements. He thus prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Bimal K. Nath, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that Ext.P1 has been issued for the reasons stated therein, which are, more or less, as stated by P. C. Sasidharan above; contending that there is nothing wrong in the said directions. He says that since the 4th respondent - Society is one registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act and Rules, the Joint Registrar has the statutory obligation to ensure that they are also sufficiently protected; if necessary, by enabling them to buy a property for themselves at a price that they can afford. He says that the 5th respondent - Society is still struggling for their existence and therefore, that the Joint Registrar found it fit that the property of the 4th respondent - Society be given to them at Fair Value. He submits that since the Fair Value is one fixed by the Revenue indicating the true worth of the property, the directions in Ext.P1 is without error.

6. I notice that, in response to the submissions of Sri. P. C. Sasidharan with respect to the locus standi of the petitioners, an affidavit has been filed by them - styled as a reply affidavit - wherein it is conceded that the 1st petitioner does not have any shares in the 4th respondent - Society but that the 2nd petitioner is its member from its commencement and owns a share of Rs.10/-. The petitioners, therefore, through their learned counsel - Sri. C. Unnikrishnan, maintain that their locus cannot be questioned.

7. As regards the other assertions made