The petitioner says that she was promoted

as the Secretary of the 3^rd respondent-Society

on 01.01.2012 and that she was placed under

suspension, through Ext.P17 order dated

04.09.2018, on certain charges; which, she

claims, are completely untenable. According to

her, when she was placed under suspension, she

moved a representation before the Managing

Committee of the Society, requesting that her

suspension be reviewed and that when it was not

considered, she was constrained to approach this

Court by filing WP(C)No.19228/2018, which was

disposed of through Ext.P12 judgment, directing

the 1^st

respondent, who is the competent

Authority in charge of the Society, to consider

the same and issue orders.

2.

The petitioner alleges that even though

the 1^st respondent was directed only to consider

3

her representation against the suspension, the

said Authority, however, went a step forward and

held, through Ext.P13 order, that her initial

appointment itself is bad, because the

resolution for this purpose had been taken by

the Managing Committee of the Society without

proper quorum. The petitioner asserts that

Ext.P13 is bad in law; but concedes that

subsequent to this, Ext.P25 order had been

issued by the 1^st

respondent, purportedly

rescinding the resolution under which she had

been appointed and prays that Ext.P25 also be

set aside, since that decision was taken without

offering an opportunity of being heard to her.

3.

The petitioner thus prays that Exts.P13

and P25 be set aside, along with Exts.P10, P14,

P17, P22 and P23, which are the earlier

proceedings, as being illegal and unlawful.

4.

Smt.C.S.Sheeja, the learned Senior

4

Government Pleader appearing on instructions

from the official respondents, submits that the

decision of the 1^st respondent, as indicated in

Exts.P13 and P25 cannot be found at fault

because concededly, there was no quorum when the

Managing Committee decided to appoint the

petitioner, through the resolution in question.

She further contends that when the Registrar of

Co-operative Societies takes a decision under

Section 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies

Act (hereinafter referred to as Act for short),

it is not necessary to hear any other person and

therefore, that the contention of the petitioner

that she ought to have been heard before Ext.P25

had been issued, is completely without statutory

strength. She thus supports Exts.P13 and P25 as

being issued validly and in proper exercise of

jurisdiction.

5.

Sri.Arun Krishnan, the learned Standing

5

Counsel for the 3^rd respondent-Society, affirms

that the 1^st respondent has set aside various

resolutions of the Managing Committee, including

the one under which the petitioner was

appointed, through Ext.P25 order and prays that

liberty may be reserved to his client to

challenge the said order in terms of law, if

they are so interested. He, however, concedes

that no such challenge has been mounted by them

until now.

6.

When I assess the submissions made as

afore by the learned counsel for the

respondents, it becomes obvious that the

position with respect to the petitioner has now

been altered from the time when Ext.P17 order of

suspension had been served on her. Unfortunately

for her, when this Court directed her

representation be decided through Ext.P12

judgment, the 1^st respondent came to be aware

6

that her appointment itself was bad because the

Managing Committee, which took the decision to

appoint her, did not have proper quorum. Of

course, in normal circumstances this is not

something that the Registrar need to have

recorded in Ext.P13 order, since the limited

prayer therein was with respect to the

petitioner's suspension. However, when the

Registrar came to be aware that the petitioner's

appointment itself was untenable, he recorded so

in Ext.P13. Even if it is concluded that the

Registrar has exceeded his powers in doing so

while acting under Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Co-

operati