SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 28433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
VINAYAN M.S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15158 OF 2026



Important Points

Writ petition not maintainable if statutory appeal pending; direct consideration with hearing.

Subject

Civil - Writ Petition

Act Referred

Headnote

First Paragraph: Under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, surcharge proceedings were initiated against office bearers of a co-operative bank. Petitioners claimed denial of inquiry report, hindering defence. Court directed consideration of statutory appeal. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as whether writ petition merits consideration post statutory appeal. Ratio: Writ petition not to be entertained when statutory remedy pursued. Third Paragraph: Writ petition disposed directing 1st respondent to consider appeal with hearing within three months; no coercive steps till disposal.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI, SRI.BINESH.K.N., SHRI.AKHILNATH K.B.
For the Respondents: GP, SRI. AJITH VISWANATHAN

Table of Content
1. surcharge proceedings under section 68; denial of inquiry report. (Para 1 , 2)
2. writ not entertained; direct appeal consideration with hearing. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court after preferring Ext.P2 appeal against the surcharge proceedings initiated against them under Section 68 (1) of the Kerala Co- Operative Societies Act (in short, “KCS Act”). They are, respectively, President and the Managing Committee members of a Co-operative bank.

2. According to the petitioners, they were not provided a copy of the report of the inquiry conducted under Section 68 of the ‘KCS Act’. They submit that, thereby, they are disabled from defending themselves.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Since the petitioners have already approached the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P2 statutory appeal, I am of the view that this writ petition need not be considered on merits.

Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorised representatives within a period of three months from today. Till it’s disposed of, no coercive steps shall be taken against the writ petitions.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top