Board of Directors of Poothakulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram; Joint Registrar (General), Co-operative Societies, Kollam; Assistant Registrar (General), Co-operative Societies, Kollam District; Unit Inspector, Paravur Unit, Kollam District; P. Sajeesh

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/12TH AGRAHAYANA 1934** **WP(C).No. 8307 of 2012 (K) -------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **----------------------** **THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE POOTHAKULAM SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD NO.2944, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT POOTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691302.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR** **SRI.V.G.ARUN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001.** **3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)** - **OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001.** **4. THE UNIT INSPECTOR, PARAVUR UNIT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)** **OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001.** **5. P.SAJEESH, SAJEESH BHAVAN, POOTHAKULAM P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT-691302.** **R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.VIJU THOMAS R5 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-11-2012, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.9212 OF 2012 THE COURT ON 03-12-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.8307/2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY R5 BEFORE THE E2 DATED 6-7-2011. EXHIBIT P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER CRP/3834/11 DATED 11-10-2011 OF THE R2.** **EXHIBIT P3:- COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BEFORE THE R2 DATED 31-10-2011. EXHIBIT P4: - COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP 3834/11 DATED 22-11-2011 OF R2.** **EXHIBIT P5: - COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP 3834/11 DATED 5-1-2012 OF R2.** **EXHIBIT P6: - COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT FILED BY R4 DATED 31-1-2012.** **EXHIBIT P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CRP 3834/11 DATED 28-2-2012 ISSUED BY R2.** **EXHIBIT P8:- COPY OF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2 DATED 19-3-2012.** **EXHIBIT P9:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENT NO.3231 APPROVED BY R2 BY ORDER NO.5704/2007/R.DIS,DATED 3-10-2007 ALONG WITH AMENDED BYE-LAW.** **EXHIBIT P10:-COPY OF THE ORDER CRP 5910/09 K.DIS DATED 19-8-2010 OF R2.** **EXHIBIT P11: - COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP 7297/10/K.DIS DATED 1-10-2011.** **EXHIBIT P12: - COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP5168/10 K.DIS DATED 19-7-2010 OF R2.** **EXHIBIT P13: - COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25-4-2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R2.** **EXHIBIT P14: - COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE POOTHAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 22-10-2011.** **EXHIBIT P15:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.III(1) DATED 27-10-2011 OF THE POOTHAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** **EXHIBIT P16: - COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10-5-2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R2.** **EXHIBIT P17: - COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER DATED 25-4-2011 ALONG WITH RESOULUTION NO.2010 DATED 17-3-2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE R2.** **EXHIBIT P18:- COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER DATED 17-8-2011 ALONG WITH RESOLUTION NO.615 DATED 30-7-2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE R2.** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.8307/2012** **EXHIBIT P19: - COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CP(6)2455/12 DATED 25-1-2012 OF R1.** **EXHIBIT P20:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.223/1112 DATED 14-3-2012 ISSUED BY THE BANK.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.Nos.8307 & 9212 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3[rd] day of December 2012 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners in both the cases are the Board of Directors of Poothakulam Service Co-operative Bank. 2. W.P.C.No.8307/2012 is filed challenging Ext.P6 report of the Junior Inspector, Co-operative Society, Paravur unit, wherein there is a finding that the Managing Committee had, without permission from the Joint Registrar incurred an expenditure of Rs.41,24,827.50/- for various purposes and recommending that the said amount has to be recovered from the members of the Managing Committee. The report is prepared u/s 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The main challenge made in Ext.P6 enquiry report is that the enquiry officer had conducted enquiry into matters which are not ordered to be conducted by the 2[nd] respondent. On merits it is contended that all the said expenditure had been made for the purpose of the bank after getting valid permissions W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 2 and it is not a case where the members of the Managing Committee were involved in any fraudulent mal practices nor has committed any breach of trust. Still further, it is contended that there is non-compliance of procedure under Section 66 of the Act and Rule 67 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 4. In addition to seeking to quash Ext.P6 petitioner also sought for a writ of mandamus directing the 2[nd] respondent to take up all the applications filed for sanctioning the amount spend for the work done in excess of estimated rate and additional works which are incidental to the main work within a time limit fixed by this Court 5. W.P.C.No.9212 of 2012 is filed consequent to the steps taken by the Joint Registrar during the pendency of W.P.C.No.8307/2012. The petitioners were required to give an explanation to the findings in the enquiry report, pursuant to which they have submitted their explanation explaining all the expenditure incurred by the Bank and contending that the various applications were pending before the authorities for approval of the expenditure. Despite such explanation being W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 3 given, the 2[nd] respondent Joint Registrar (General) issued notice Ext.P23 dated 31/3/2012 to show cause why proceedings under Section 32 of the Act shall not be taken against them. 6. The petitioner challenges P23 show cause notice dated 31/3/2012 as illegal and arbitrary. According to them, the explanation given by the bank clearly explains all the actual facts in order to cure the defects pointed out and therefore there was no reason for the 2[nd] respondent to have ordered further enquiry in the matter. It is also the case of the petitioner, that a direction was issued by the Joint Registrar only to conduct an enquiry in granting loans to persons outside the area of the bank, in regard to the rent advance given to landlord for starting an evening branch and the amounts spent for inauguration. The Enquiry Officer had exceeded the directions issued which is contrary to Section 66 of the Act. The petitioner explains that all activities had been done in accordance with the Rules. It is further contended that Sec.32 of the Act cannot be invoked if the defects pointed out in the enquiry report had been cured and without taking into consideration these facts, without any basis, proceedings are initiated under Section 32 of the Act. W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. 4 and 9212/2012 7. It is the common case of the petitioners that the above enquiry was initiated at the instance of the member of the society that is the 5[th] respondent who was in enemical terms with the present Managing Committee members, politically and personally. 8. The 2[nd] respondent in both cases is the Joint Registrar who had filed counter affidavits indicating that on the basis of the complaint received from the 5[th] respondent alleging certain irregularities in the working of the bank the Assistant Registrar (General) Kollam was asked to make an enquiry and on perusing his enquiry report it was convinced that a detailed inspection is necessary in the matter in regard to the working and fund management of the bank. After seeking a clarification from the President and Director Board Members of the Bank and after verifying their reply it was found to be not satisfactory and an order was issued under Section 66 of the Act for a detailed inspection which resulted in the impugned order in WPC.No. 8307/2012. Again clarification was sought for and after inspection and hearing the parties when it was found to be not satisfactory notice under Section 32 of the Act has been issued. W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 5 Counter Affidavit narrates the nature of irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Managing Committee. It is further contended that since only statutory notice under Section 32(1) has been issued there is no reason for the petitioners to approach the court at this point of time. The 5[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit in WPC.No.9212 of 2012 and supports the action taken by the department. 9. Learned counsel appearing for either side have relied upon several judgments to support the view taken by them in regard to the cases on hand. 10. On a verification of the pleadings the question to be considered is whether there is any justification on the part of the authorities in conducting an enquiry and on the basis of the said enquiry report whether there is any justification to issue notice under Section 32(1) of the Act. If the authorities have conducted the enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed, I do not think that there will be any scope for interference. Apparently, as to whether the explanation given by the Managing Committee members of the petitioner is valid or not is a matter to be adjudicated by the competent authorities W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. 6 and 9212/2012 especially when the statute provides for an appeal against the order of the Registrar either imposing a surcharge or directing supersession. Therefore the only question to be considered is whether there is procedural infirmity affecting the rights of the petitioner and whether any illegality is committed by the statutory authorities. 11. The main contention urged is that there cannot be an enquiry on the basis of a complaint made by the 5[th] respondent who is only a member. Ext.P6, is a report under section 66 of the Act. Section 66 contemplates that the Registrar shall supervise or cause to be supervised by a person authorised by him by general or special order in writing in this behalf, the working of every society as frequently as he may consider necessary. Supervision includes the inspection of the books of the society as well. Sub section 2 of section 66 of the Act indicates that inspection can be done either on his own motion or on the application of a creditor of a society. In fact it has been held in **K.G.Sadasivan v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies [2008(1) KHC 556]** , that on the basis of the complaint made by a member of the society when reports W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. 7 and 9212/2012 were called for by the Joint Registrar from the Assistant Registrar, exercising powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, it is not within the province of the judicial review to search for the source of material which triggered a suo motu action as the Registrar has power under Section 66(2) of the Act to inspect or direct inspection of the books of the society. In that view of the matter, I do not think that the argument that the Joint Registrar cannot exercise the power of inspection on the complaint of a member is sustainable. 12. While challenging the enquiry report, petitioners do not have a case that they were not heard in the matter. Admittedly, the 2[nd] respondent has entrusted with the 3[rd] respondent to prepare a report. The 3[rd] respondent after conducting an inspection submitted report dated 07/09/2011 to the 2[nd] respondent and by Ext.P2 petitioner was called upon to offer the explanation. Ext.P3 is the explanation. It is also an admitted fact that the 2[nd] respondent, after verifying the explanation, directed an enquiry to be conducted in terms of Sec.66 of the Act. Ext.P4 is the said order, which resulted in Ext.P6. Though it is urged that there is violation of the W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 8 procedure for conducting the enquiry, I do not think that there is any procedural violation. However it is contended by the learned counsel that in an order under Rule 66(1)(c) of the Rules, the Registrar has to indicate the specific point or points on which the enquiry on inspection is to be made and that the inspecting agency cannot go beyond the said direction. Reference is made to the judgment in **Cheranellur Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar (1976 KLT 353)** wherein a learned single judge after referring to Rule 66 of the Rules held as under: “No doubt, under S.65 of the Act, the Registrar or any other officer of the department to whom the powers of the Registrar are delegated by the notification can order an enquiry. But in ordering an enquiry the specific point or points on which the enquiry is to be made are to be made known in the proceedings that is issued. This is what is insisted by R.66 (l)(c) of the Rules. Not only that, without indicating in the proceedings that is to precede an enquiry, the point or points on which enquiry is to be conducted, it goes without saying that no proper enquiry will be possible. Again, for the society and its office bearers to face the enquiry in a W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. 9 and 9212/2012 just manner the indication of the pointer points on which the enquiry is to be conducted in the proceedings is only essential.” This argument is also not sustainable in view of the fact that in Ext.P4 order, there is specific reference to the allegations made and reference is made to the earlier reports of the Assistant Registrar dated 07/09/2011 and also the explanation given by the Managing Committee which inter alia contains all the details of the matter to be enquired. As such the said ground is not available for the petitioner. 13. Therefore, I am of the view that as far as WPC.No.8317/12 is concerned there is no procedural error or illegality in making an enquiry under Section 66 and therefore the said writ petition is only to be dismissed. 14. In W.P.C.No.9212/12 the question is whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 32(1) of the Act is warranted or not. The main thrust of the argument is that under Section 32(1) of the Act company can be superseded only if it involves any of the activities as specified under sub clauses (a) to (d) of Section 32(1) which reads as under: W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 10 **“32. Supersession of Committee -** (1) If the Registrar, after an inquiry by himself or through his subordinates or on a report of the financing bank, or the Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau of the Government or the Vigilance Officer or otherwise is satisfied that the Committee of any society - (a) persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or bye-laws or does anything which is prejudicial to the interests of the society; or (b)wilfully disobeys or fails to comply with any lawful order or direction issued under this Act or the rules; or (c) makes any payment contrary to this Act or the rules or the bye-laws or causes any loss or damage to the assets of the society by breach of trust of wilful negligence; or (d)misappropriates or destroys or tampers with the records or causes the destruction of records to cover up any misconduct or malpractice, he may, after giving the committee an opportunity to state its objections, if any, by order in writing, remove the committee and, appoint a new committee consisting of not more W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 11 than three members of the society in its place or, appoint not more than three administrators, who need not be members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding six months, as may be specified in the order, which period may, at the discretion of the Registrar, be extended from time to time, so however that the aggregate period does not exceed one year". 15. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only in instances of persistent defaults or negligence in the performance of the duties in violation of the Act or the Rules or bye-laws which affects the interest of the society or if the members wilfully disobeys or fails to comply with any lawful order or direction or makes any payment contrary to this Act or causes any damages to the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence or misappropriates or destroys or tampers with the records or causes the destruction of records to cover up any misconduct or malpractice that any attempt can be made to take action under Section 32(1). According to the learned counsel the acts complained do not involve any of the aforesaid provisions. The W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. 12 and 9212/2012 learned counsel also tries to explain that all the expenditure had been made after requesting for permission and only in a case where an enquiry is conducted by Registrar under Section 65, that Sec.65(6) provides for initiation of action in accordance with provision of Section 32. 16. It is the argument that if an action is taken under Section 66 of the Act, there is no corresponding provision like that of Sec.65(6) to take action under Section 32 and the only provision is to impose surcharge proceedings under Section 68. In this regard, reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala v. Sudarsanan [1997(2) KLT 522]** would answer the issue. That was a case where an enquiry was conducted in terms of Sec.66 of the Act on the basis of a report submitted by the Assistant Registrar alleging certain irregularities. Action was initiated under Section 32(1) of the Act. One of the main contentions was whether without completing the procedure under Section 66, a notice under Section 32 could have been issued. This Court in paragraph 7 & 8 held as under: W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 13 “7. The first ground which weighed with the learned single Judge was that once the proceedings under S. 66 are initiated, without completing the procedure under the provisions of S. 66 of the Act, no action can be taken by the Joint Registrar under S. 32 of the Act. The learned Judge relied on the decision reported in AIR 1970 SC 992 (Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Madras & Ors. v. P.S. Rajagopal Naidu) and observed in paragraph 12 of the judgment as follows: “In AIR 1970SC 992 the Supreme Court held that the Registrar must as a condition precedent give a direction under Ss. 64, 65 and 66 of the Act, viz., the power of audit, enquiry and inspection for the defects or the irregularities to be remedied and should take action only if there is a wilful disobedience or wilful failure to comply with the orders or directions. There cannot be an order straightway recommending supersession by the Assistant Registrar.” The learned Judge also referred to S. 66(5) of the Act. We cannot agree with the finding of the learned Judge on this matter. The power given W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 14 to the Registrar to supersede is under S. 32(1) of the Act. It reads as follows: “If the Registrar is satisfied that the committee of any society persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Actor the rules or bye-laws or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interests of the society or wilfully disobeys or wilfully fails to comply with any lawful order or direction issued under this Act or the rules, the Registrar may, after giving the committee an opportunity to state its objections, if any, by order in writing remove the committee...” The condition precedent for exercising the power under S. 32 is that the Registrar on materials placed before him should be satisfied that the grounds mentioned in S. 32 exist for supersession of the committee. It is not necessary for this purpose that the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar should exercise the powers under Ss. 63, 64, 65 and 66 of the Act. No doubt, in the present case, enquiry was made under S. 66 of the Act. Under S. 66(5) of the Act, the Registrar can direct the Society or W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 15 its officers to take such action as may be specified in such order within the time that may be mentioned in such order. But, on inspection, if it is found that the committee has committed such irregularities or that there has been neglect of the orders issued by the Registrar or that huge losses have been occurred due to the negligence of the committee, it cannot be said that the Assistant Registrar, should under S. 65 of the Act, direct the society to cure the defects. If the circumstances are so serious the Assistant Registrar can report the matter to the Registrar to take suitable action individually under S. 32 of the Act. 8. A similar question came up before the Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 992 (Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madras v. Rajagopal). Their Lordships were considering the provisions of S. 72 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, which is akin to S. 32 of the Kerala Act. Ss. 64 to 67 of the Madras Act relate to audit, inspection etc. similar to sections 63 to 67 of the Act. The contention before the Supreme Court was that before conducting enquiries under Ss. 64 to 67, the Registrar cannot take action under S. 72 of the Act. Dealing with the above W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 16 contention, the Supreme Court held as follows:- “It is significant that S. 72(1) does not contain any mention of Ss. 64 to 67 which appear in S.70(l) and of Ss. 65, 66 and 67 which are expressly mentioned in S. 85(1). If the intention of the Legislature was that the supersession of the Committee under S. 72 can be ordered by the Registrar only after recourse to Ss. 64, 65, 66 and 67, there is no reason why language analogous to S. 70(1) or S. 85(1) containing an express mention of the aforesaid sections, should not have been employed. An audit under S. 64 has to be done every year in view of the mandatory form of the language of that S. 64. But as regards Ss. 65 & 66 the Registrar has been given the discretionary powers to make an inquiry or an inspection in accordance with those sections, there is no duty or obligation cast on him for doing so before he proceeds to take action under S. 72. All that is required by S. 72(l)(a) is that the Registrar should form an opinion that the Committee of any Registered society is not functioning properly or has wilfully disobeyed or failed to comply with any lawful order or direction issued by him. So far W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 17 as the question of the society not functioning properly is concerned, that may depend on what the Registrar discovers after a proper audit, enquiry and inspection. But he can form that opinion even on material aliunde and the language of the section does not warrant by necessary implication that the taking of the view that be is bound to form that opinion after following the entire procedure prescribed by the other sections under discussion.”(emphasis added) Further the Supreme Court observed as follows:- “It may be that when the Registrar acts under the second limb of S. 72(l)(a) and proposes to supersede the committee for wilful disobedience or wilful failure to comply with any lawful order or direction issued by the Registrar under the Act or the rule that the provisions contained in Ss. 64, 65 and 66 may become relevant. But that does not and cannot mean that the Registrar must as a condition precedent give a direction under those sections for the defects or the irregularities to he remedied and should take W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. 18 and 9212/2012 action only under the second limb i.e. when there is a wilful disobedience or wilful failure to comply with those orders or directions”. (emphasis added) Thus, it has been clearly laid down that it is not necessary to complete the exercise under Ss. 63 to 66 to enable the Registrar to take action under S. 32 of the Act.” 17. Therefore the argument that proceedings under Section 32(1) of the Act cannot be taken without completing the procedure under Section 66 or after action is taken under Section 66 of the Act is not correct. That ground is also not available for the petitioner. 18. Then the next question to be considered is whether the acts complained of requires a procedure for superseding the committee in terms of Sec.32(1). The argument is that in the absence of any mala fides on the part of the Managing Committee when the acts complained of are all relating to over expenditure for which appropriate applications are already pending, it was wrong on the part of the 2[nd] respondent to have issued notice under Section 32. It is not in dispute that only in W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. 19 and 9212/2012 instances when the Registrar is satisfied that the committee of any society had acted in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of sub section 1 of Section 32, there will be justification on the part of the Registrar to supersede the society. The power under section 32 (1)has to be exercised with great care and caution as the Registrar will be removing an elected body from managing the society though there might be over expenditure. But if applications have already been submitted for ratifying the said expenditure, it has to be verified whether such expenditure is permissible or not. 19. In **Ellakkal Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 85)** a learned single judge of this court held as under: "18. It has been held by this Court in the decision reported in Rajagopalan Nair v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 184) that the provision of supersession is to be considered as an exceptional and rare action. In the decision reported in 1997 (1) KLJ 607 (T. T. James and Ors. v. Joint Registrar & 0rs.) it was held by this Court that mere default or disobedience or failure to comply with the provisions assuming W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. and 9212/2012 20 to be found to be true cannot be a ground for supersession unless it is shown that there is persistent and wilful negligence and wilful disobedience. A similar view was taken in the decision reported in P. Govindankutty & Ors. v. State & Ors. (1990 (1) KLJ 474). In the decision reported in Pollachi Co-operative Marketing Society v. K.N. Valuswami (1994 Supp. (3) SCC 134) the Supreme Court held that to constitute wilful negligence and wilful disobedience the act done or omitted to be done must involve such reckless disregard of duty as to imply bad faith". 20. Of course it is the duty of the Joint Registrar to keep in mind the principles laid down by this Court while exercising the quasi judicial function under Section 32(1) of the Act. I am not going into the factual aspects involved in the matter as it is purely within the discretion of the Registrar to find out whether the acts complained of involves any of the provisions coming under Section 32(1) (a) to (d). It is not open for this Court to conduct an enquiry in regard to the allegations and explanations thereof as those are all matters to be considered by the appropriate statutory authorities. W.P.C.Nos.8307/2012. 21 and 9212/2012 21. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that in so far as there is no violation of any procedural requirements nor any illegality in the action taken as on date, I am of the view that there is no reason to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with notice under Section 32(1) of the Act. Hence W.P.C.No.9212 of 2012 also fails. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr //True Copy// PA to Judge