Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
ADV. JEROME MANJILA – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 20746 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.NISHA GEORGE, SHRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.), SHRI.ANSHIN K.K
For the Respondents: SMT. C.S SHEEJA (GP)
Petitioners must raise all objections to the notice before the competent authority prior to judicial review.
Headnote:The petitioners challenge Ext.P6 notice issued under Section 68 (2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, claiming it as illegal due to lack of concluded loss by the society. The Government Pleader argues the necessity for objections to be raised before the competent authority based on Kudayathoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. judgment. The court affirms the Government Pleader's view, insisting that all contentions must be raised before the competent authority; thus, the writ petition is dismissed while reserving the petitioners' rights for future objections.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to notice under section 68. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2026 This Writ Petition has been challenging Ext.P6 notice issued under sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969.
2. According to the petitioners, Ext.P.6 notice is illegal and unsustainable in law, as the proceedings indicate that the competent authority has not even concluded that any loss has been sustained by society. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, a proceeding under Section 68 is without jurisdiction and has to be set aside in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that going by the law laid down by the Full Bench in Kudayathoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), 2022 (3) KHC (FB), all contentions, including the contention now raised before this Court, has to be raised before the competent authority as and when the notice under sub-section (2) of is being adjudicated. It is submitted that absolutely no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners by requiring them to raise their objections before the competent authority at the first stage, before rushing to this Court in a Writ Petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader and having regard to the law laid down by this Court in Kudayathoor Service Co- operative Bank Ltd (supra), I am of the view that the learned Government Pleader is right in contending that the petitioners have to raise all contentions before the competent authority, as and when the Ext.P.6 notice is being adjudicated. Expressly reserving the right of the petitioners to do so, this Writ Petition will stand dismissed. All contentions raised in this Writ Petition are left open to be raised before the competent authority at the time of adjudication.
Sd/-
