Proceedings under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act do not conclude unless further actions are initiated after a show cause notice.

JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P1 proceedings through which an inquiry has been ordered in terms of the provisions contained under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1969 Act'). The inquiry was completed, and Ext.P7 report was prepared at a time when the Writ Petition was pending before this Court, and, therefore, the petitioner sought to challenge Ext.P7 by applying for amendment of the Writ Petition.

2. Sri. George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions of Smt. Nisha George vehemently contends that this is a case where the order directing an inquiry in terms of the provisions contained in Section 65 of the 1969 Act and the report under Section 65 of the 1969 Act (Ext. P7) are vitiated by several errors, legal and factual. It is submitted that the proceedings are vitiated by bias. It is pointed out that the very same officer whose inspection report led to Ext. P1 order was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 65 cause serious prejudice to the Society and its Managing Committee and the judgment of the Full Bench in Kudayathoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), 2022 (3) KLT 222 (F.B.), cannot be pressed into service to contend that all objections to the initiation of proceedings and the report can be raised only when further proceedings are initiated either under Section 32 or under Section 68 of the 1969 Act.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submits that he is not called upon at this stage to answer the allegations of bias and the legal and factual mistakes which have allegedly crept in while issuing Ext.P1 order and while preparing Ext.P7 inquiry report. It is submitted that the law laid down in Kudayathoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited (supra) is a complete answer to the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is submitted that a reading of paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Full Bench would show that practically all the contentions now raised before this Court were considered by the Full Bench and it was categorically held that the right to object to the proceedings under Section 65 or Section 66 of the 1969 Act will only be at the stage when a show cause notice is issued either under the provisions of Section 32 or under the provisions of Section 68 of the 1969 Act. It is submitted that at the said stage, it will be open to the petitioner or any other person against whom action is initiated to contend and point out the alleged legal or factual mistakes and also attempt to establish that the report should not be the basis for any further action either under Section 32 or under Section 68 of the 1969 Act. In other words, it is submitted that absolutely no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if they are prohibited from challenging the report at this stage, as every contention can be raised before the competent authority at the relevant time.

4. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, I am of the view that proceedings under Sections 65 and 66 of the 1969 Act contemplate the conduct of an inquiry or an inspection to enable the Registrar to inform himself as to the situation of the Society, including the constitution, working, or financial condition of the Society. It cannot be disputed that every Co-operative Society is subject to regulation by the Co-operative Department (or other departments; for example, if the Society is a milk society, the Registrar would be the Director of the Dairy D