1. Members of a cooperative society's elected managing committee challenge an order of supersession issued under Section 32 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, without prior notice. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74887
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Viju Abraham, J
K.S. Mani – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32366 OF 2026
Important Points
Supersession of an elected cooperative committee without mandatory notice and consultation is illegal unless it is practically impossible to provide such opportunity; the gravity of allegations alone does not justify dispensing with the pre-decisional hearing requirement.
Subject
Civil Law - Cooperative Societies Law
Act Referred
Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969: S.32, S.66(11), S.14AA(1), S.66A, S.19A
KCS Rules: R.13A(5), R.53
KCS Rules: R.13A(5), R.53
Headnote
(A) Cooperative Societies Law - Sections 32(1), 32(2), and 32(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 - Supersession of elected Managing Committee - Dispensation of notice and consultation - The supersession of an elected Managing Committee or Board is an exception and can be resorted to only in very exceptional circumstances; normally an elected body shall be allowed to complete its term (Para 7) - The requirement to provide an opportunity to the committee to state objections under Section 32(1) and the consultation process under Section 32(2) can be dispensed with under Section 32(3) only if it is "not reasonably practicable to do so" - This phrase refers to a practical or physical impossibility to issue notice and not the gravity of allegations or irregularities noticed during inspection (Paras 7, 8) - The decision to supersede a democratically elected committee must be based on objective criteria (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, being elected members and the Chairman of the Managing Committee of a central cooperative society, challenged an order superseding the Board under Section 32 of the Act. The authority had dispensed with the mandatory pre-decisional opportunity to file objections and the requirement to consult the financing bank and the State Co-operative Union, claiming that granting such time would enable the Committee to manipulate records and destroy evidence. The petitioners contended that they had consistently cooperated with prior inquiries and that the allegations of obstruction were unsubstantiated and raised as an afterthought in the counter-affidavit.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the authority failed to establish that it was not reasonably practicable to provide notice. The record showed that the authority had sufficient time to conduct inspections and seize documents if there was a genuine fear of tampering. The claims of obstruction made in the counter-affidavit were not mentioned in the supersession order or the inspection reports, leading the Court to conclude that the dispensation of statutory formalities was without basis.
Issues: Whether the supersession of an elected Managing Committee without affording an opportunity to state objections and without required consultations is legally sustainable on the ground that giving such notice would lead to the tampering of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory exception for dispensing with notice under Section 32(3) must be construed strictly. The "practicability" mentioned refers to the physical or practical possibility of issuing notice, not the logical probability of the result or the severity of the misconduct allegations. Consequently, the failure to follow the mandate of Sections 32(1) and 32(2) renders the supersession order illegal.
Result: Ext P1 order of supersession is set aside.
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, being elected members and the Chairman of the Managing Committee of a central cooperative society, challenged an order superseding the Board under Section 32 of the Act. The authority had dispensed with the mandatory pre-decisional opportunity to file objections and the requirement to consult the financing bank and the State Co-operative Union, claiming that granting such time would enable the Committee to manipulate records and destroy evidence. The petitioners contended that they had consistently cooperated with prior inquiries and that the allegations of obstruction were unsubstantiated and raised as an afterthought in the counter-affidavit.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the authority failed to establish that it was not reasonably practicable to provide notice. The record showed that the authority had sufficient time to conduct inspections and seize documents if there was a genuine fear of tampering. The claims of obstruction made in the counter-affidavit were not mentioned in the supersession order or the inspection reports, leading the Court to conclude that the dispensation of statutory formalities was without basis.
Issues: Whether the supersession of an elected Managing Committee without affording an opportunity to state objections and without required consultations is legally sustainable on the ground that giving such notice would lead to the tampering of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory exception for dispensing with notice under Section 32(3) must be construed strictly. The "practicability" mentioned refers to the physical or practical possibility of issuing notice, not the logical probability of the result or the severity of the misconduct allegations. Consequently, the failure to follow the mandate of Sections 32(1) and 32(2) renders the supersession order illegal.
Result: Ext P1 order of supersession is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Deepak, Rilgin V. George, Dennise Jacob Savy
For the Respondents: P.N. Mohanan, M. Sasindran, Arun Chandran, K. Jaju Babu
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Deepak, Rilgin V. George, Dennise Jacob Savy
For the Respondents: P.N. Mohanan, M. Sasindran, Arun Chandran, K. Jaju Babu
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege illegality in dispensing with mandatory pre-decisional notice and consultation; respondents contend obstruction of inspection justified the emergency exercise of statutory supersession powers. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. The court found the respondents failed to establish logical or physical impracticability for issuing notice, noting allegations only support supersession if statutory procedural mandates are fulfilled. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
4. The expression it is not reasonably practicable to do so in Section 32(3) requires established practical impossibility of serving notice, not merely the gravity of allegations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. The court set aside the supersession order, directed reinstatement of the committee, and mandated the authority to conduct fresh proceedings following statutory compliance. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. What standard must be met to dispense with the mandatory notice requirement for supersession under Section 32 of the Act?
Dispensing with notice under Section 32(3) requires demonstrating that it is physically or practically impossible to issue notice to the management committee, not merely the existence of serious allegations, irregularities, or apprehensions of evidence tampering. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Does granting additional time for document production by an inspection team negate a claim of obstruction justifying emergency supersession?
Yes. When an inspection team grants extensions for document production, it contradicts a later claim in judicial proceedings that the committee engaged in wilful obstruction sufficient to render notice impracticable. (Para 10 )
8. Is the supersession of an elected cooperative managing committee without following procedural mandates legally sustainable?
No. Supersession is an exceptional measure; failure to comply with mandatory provisions for notice and consultation under Section 32(1) and (2) violates the rights of an elected body and renders the action legally infirm. (Para 7 , 11 )
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.32366 of 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue in office as members of the Board of Directors/Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent Union till the expiry of their term.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: First petitioner and petitioners 2 to 5 herein are the former elected Chairman and elected Members, respectively of the Board of Directors/ Managing Committee of the 3“ respondent Central Society, namely, Malabar Regional Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union, which stands superseded under Section 32 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (for short, the ‘Act’) by Ext. P1 dated 18.09.2026. The Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent Union, now superseded vide Ext.P1 order, had assumed office with effect from 05.02.2025 and the term of office would have expired only on 04.02.2030. The essential grievance raised by the petitioners is that in rendering Ext.P1 order, the 2nd respondent has, by invoking Section 32(3) of the Act, expressly dispensed with the mandatory requirement of giving the committee an opportunity of stating objections under Section 32(1) and without consulting the financing bank and the State Co-operative Union as required under Section 32(2) of the Act. The said action is justified on a stereotyped ground that the time that would be expended in complying with the aforesaid statutory formalities would enable the Committee to manipulate the records, influence the officials and destroy, rewrite or otherwise cause damage to the relevant files. This called for an examination of the validity of the said stand in dispensing with the mandatory requirement or permitting the Committee to state its objection under Section 32(1) of the Act and the dispensation of consulting the financing Bank and the State Co-operative Union as required under Section 32(2) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioners that no such circumstances prevail in the present case for the 2nd respondent to hold that it is not reasonably practicable to comply with the mandate of a pre-decisional opportunity to state objections and prior consultation. To drive home the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent herself had, as early as on 19.08.2026, i.e., almost a month before the issue of Ext.P1 order dated 18.09.2026, issued Ext.P2 order under Section 66 (11) of the Act.
The inquiry under Ext.P2 order was also to be held into the affairs of a subsidiary institution promoted by the 3rd respondent Union, namely, Malabar Rural Development Foundation (MRDF), apart from the 3rd respondent Union. On 21.08.2026, immediately on receipt of Ext.P2 order, the Managing Director had, on behalf of the committee members including the petitioners, submitted Ext.P3 letter before the 2nd respondent, expressing the definite and unequivocal resolve of the committee members to totally cooperate with the proposed inquiry. Later, on 01.09.2026, the 1st petitioner, in his capacity as the Chairman of the 3rd respondent Union, also issued Ext.P4 letter to the 2nd respondent, reiterating the stand expressed by the Managing Director in Ext.P3 communication and extending complete cooperation on the part of the committee members to the proposed inquiry. In Ext.P4 communication, the 1st petitioner also indicated that the proposed inquiry must be broadened to include within its scope even matters relating to the administration, management and business of the 3rd respondent Union prior to the assumption of office of the present committee on 05.02.2025. Petitioners would submit that from the date of issuance of Ext P2 order on 19.08.2026, the Inspe
