Chenkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Thiruvananthapuram; Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Neyyattinkara

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WA.No.714 of 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.01.2019 IN WP(C) 27836/2017** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **CHENKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1258 CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** **BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001** **2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL), NEYYATTINKARA , PIN-695 101** **BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA.No.714 of 2019** **2** **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ## _**Ravikumar, J.**_ This appeal carries a challenge against the judgment dated 28.01.2019 in W.P.(C) No.27836/2017. The unsuccessful petitioner, who is the appellant herein, called in question Ext.P1 order dated 22.07.2017 in the writ petition whereby and whereunder an inquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for brevity, 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder was ordered on certain specific points and the Junior Inspector attached to the office of the 2[nd] respondent was appointed as the inquiry officer for that purpose. A time limit of three months was fixed for completion of such inquiry. Besides seeking quashment of Ext.P1 the appellant-petitioner sought for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding **WA.No.714 of 2019** **3** the 1[st] respondent to recall Ext.P1 order and also a declaration that the points sought to be enquired are either already sanctioned or permitted by orders or the proceedings of the authorities. 2. The 1[st] respondent had filed counter affidavit. Upon perusal of the pleadings and hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with certain directions after declining to interfere with Ext.P1 order. It is aggrieved by the directions and the disinclination to interfere with Ext.P1 order that this writ appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. 4. A perusal of the pleadings would reveal that the precise case of the appellant is that Ext.P1 is infected with procedural irregularity and illegality. Firstly, it is contended that Ext.P1 order was passed by the 1[st] respondent without application of mind. In elaboration of the said **WA.No.714 of 2019** **4** contention, it is contended that in view of the plethora of decisions, before passing an order for inquiry under Section 65 of the Act, the authority competent has to apply its mind to arrive at a conclusion as to whether in the circumstances obtained an inquiry is essential or not. It is the contention that a perusal of the impugned Ext.P1 order itself would reveal that the Assistant Registrar (General) had recommended inquiry under Section 65 of the Act without application of mind and in other words, without considering the requirement to order for an inquiry, in accordance with law. According to the appellant, the subjective satisfaction of the Registrar is not reflected in Ext.P1 order and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. In fact, all these contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge. According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the contentions and it is the improper appreciation of the various contentions that culminated in the impugned judgment. To drive home the **WA.No.714 of 2019** **5** point that Ext.P1 order cannot be sustained in law, in view of such irregularities and illegalities, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on decisions of this Court in _**Melukkara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar (General), District Co-operative Society** [2018 (2) KLT 640]_ and in _**Ellakkal Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala**_ [1997 (2) KLT 85]. Certain other contentions are also raised by the appellant. 5. _Per contra_ , learned Government Pleader submitted that the learned Single Judge had carefully considered the rival contentions with reference to the relevant provisions in the Act and the Rules, more particularly Sections 65 and 66 of the Act and Rule 66 of the Rules as also the relevant decisions to ultimately arrive at the rightful conclusion that Ext.P1 requires no interference. It is the further submission that a bare perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the question whether Ext.P1 fulfills the requirement to validate **WA.No.714 of 2019** **6** an order passed under Section 65 of the Act was gone into detail by the learned Single Judge and it is after such satisfaction that the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the same. It is submitted that even then the learned Single Judge had issued directions to ensure that the inquiry ordered under Ext.P1 is conducted in accordance with the Rules and without violating the principles of natural justice. 6. Essentially, the core contention of the appellant is that the circumstances under which inquiry under Section 65 of the Act was ordered under Ext.P1 would reveal that the 1[st] respondent had failed to apply his mind as relates the necessity to order an inquiry. It is also the further contention that Ext.P1 is nothing but a mechanical order passed based on the recommendation of the 2[nd] respondent and that some of the points that are sought to be inquired into are already matters where sanction was required and obtained and in respect of certain issues **WA.No.714 of 2019** **7** relating appointments. Such appointments were made legally and pursuant to judgments of this Court permitting to effect them. It is contended that in respect of certain appointments effected in the appellant society it is the submission that earlier a complaint was filed before the first respondent and thereupon the first respondent interdicted appointments in the society. This was challenged in W.P.(C) No.724/2018 and as per the judgment dated 11.04.2018 the writ petition was allowed and appointments were actually effected on the strength of the permission granted thereunder. The contention in respect of auction of pledged gold ornaments is that it is also covered by judgments of this Court wherein the complaints against such auctions were found meritless. It is raising such contentions that Ext.P1 was called in question. Evidently, the sum and substance of the contention of the learned Government Pleader raised to resist such contentions is that a bare perusal of the **WA.No.714 of 2019** **8** various points ordered to be inquired into in and vide Ext.P1 would reveal that the verity or otherwise of the allegations thereunder could be detected only through a proper factual inquiry. In the context of such rival contentions, it is only apropos to refer to the various points ordered to be inquired into and they read thus:- “ സസ) അനനന്വേഷണ വസചചാരണ നടനത്തേണ : വസഷയങ്ങൾ (1) ബചാങസൽ നസനന്നും സന്വേയന്നും സഹചായ സന്നുംഘങ്ങൾ, നജചായസനന്റ് ലയബസലസറസ ഗ്രൂപ്പുകൾ എനസവയന്റ് ജജവനകചാഴസ പദ്ധതസ നടപചാക്കുനതസനന്റ് 5 ലകന്നും രൂപ വവീതന്നും 8 ഗ്രൂപ്പുകൾകന്റ് . വചായ്പ നൽകസയസരുന ടസ തുക അനന ദസവസന്നും തനന ബചാങസനന നചക് ൾ മുഖചാനസരന്നും നകചാഴസയന്നും മറന്റ് അനുബന വസ്തുകളന്നും നൽകചാനമനന്റ് ഉറപസൽ എസന്റ്.എൻ.എസന്റ്. , ഇൻഡസവീസന്റ് വസഷ്ണു ഏജൻസവീസന്റ് എനവീ കമ്പനസകൾകന്റ് നൽകസ കമ്പനസ നചകന്റ് ബചാങസൽ സമർപസചന്റ് പണന്നും ജകപറസ പ്രസ് കമ്പനസ കരചാർ പചാലസക് നയചാ ബചാങന്റ് ആയതന്റ് പരസനശചാധസക് നയചാ നചയസനല്ലെനന്നും ടസ വസഷയന്നും സന്നുംബനസചന്റ് , പ്രസസഡനസനന ഒനചാന്നും പ്രതസയചാകസ നപചാലവീസന്റ് നകസന്നും ഓന്നുംബുഡന്റ്ഡചാനസൽ പരചാതസയന്നും നസലവസലുണന്റ് എനതു **WA.No.714 of 2019** **9** . സന്നുംബനസചന്റ് (2) ബചാങസനല സന്വേർണ്ണപണയ ഉരുപടസകൾ നലലന്നും നടത്തേസയതു സന്നുംബനസചന്റ് പരചാതസ ലഭസചതസനന അടസസചാനത്തേസൽ നനയചാറസങര അസസസ്റ്റനന്റ് രജസസചാർ , പണയ അനനന്വേഷണന്നും നടത്തുകയന്നും തുടർ നലലവന്നും ഉരുപടസകൾ തസരസനക നൽകുനതുന്നും നസർത്തേസവയന്റ്ചസരുന. 800 ലധസകന്നും പണയങ്ങൾകന്റ് യഥചാവസധസ നനചാടവീസന്റ് നൽകചാനത , സന്വേർണ്ണന്നും നലലന്നും നചയതന്റ് സന്നുംബനസചന്നും സന്വേർണ്ണ പണയന്നും വവചാജ നപരുകളസലചാനണനന്നും ടസ വസഷയത്തേസൽ ശവീ.ബസ.രചാനജന്ദ്രൻ ജഹനകചാടതസയസൽ ഡബബ.പസ.(സസ). നമ്പർ 28425/2016 നമ്പരചായസ നകസന്റ് നസലവസലുള്ളതു . സന്നുംബനസചന്റ് (3) ബചാങസനന്റ് വചാത്തേചാങരയസൽ ശചാഖ പ്രവർത്തേസപസക്കുനതസനചായസ വസ്തു വചാങ്ങസ നകടസടന്നും അനപക വയനതസനചായസ സമർപസക് യന്നും നജചായസനന്റ് രജസസചാർ (ജനറൽ) അനുമതസ നൽകുകയന്നും ശചാഖ നസർമചാണത്തേസനുന്നും നഷചാപസങന്റ് നകചാന്നുംപ്ലകന്റ് നസർമചാണത്തേസനുമചായസ 1,14,00,000/രൂപയനട നടനർ നനചാടവീസന്റ് പരസവന്നും ബചാങസനന പ്രവർത്തേന പരസധസയസൽ വളനര പരസമസതമചായ സർക്കുനലഷൻ ഉള്ള പത്രങ്ങളസൽ . പർസവനപടുത്തേസയതു വഴസ ബചാങസനുന്റ് ഒരു നടണറന്നും ലഭസചസല്ലെ തുടർനന്റ് നജചായസനന്റ് രജസസചാർ (ജനറൽ) നന്റ് അനപക നൽകസ **WA.No.714 of 2019** **10** സബന്റ് കമസറസ രൂപവീകരസചന്റ് ടസ കമസറസയനട നമൽ നനചാടത്തേസൽ പണസ പൂർത്തേസയചാകസ വരുനതുന്നും ആയതസനന്റ് അനുവചാദന്നും ലഭസചതസനനകചാൾ കൂടുതൽ തുക നചലവഴസചന്റ് 590 നസചായർ . ഫവീറന്റ് അധസകരസചന്റ് നസർമചാണന്നും നടത്തേസയതന്റ് സന്നുംബനസചന്റ് (4) ബചാങസൽ നകചാർ ബചാങസങന്റ് സന്നുംവസധചാനന്നും ഏർനപടുത്തേസയതസനന്റ് നസയമ പ്രകചാരമുള്ള പത്ര പരസവന്നും , നൽകസ കന്വേനടഷൻ സന്േകരസചസല്ലെചാനയനതന്റ് സന്നുംബനസചന്നും കൂടചാനത ബചാങസൽ നകചാർ ബചാങസങന്റ് ഏർനപടുത്തുനതസനന്റ് മുൻപന്റ് നടത്തേസയസട്ടുള്ള കന്നുംബബ്യൂടന്റ്ർവൽകരണവമചായസ ബനനപട മറന്റ് . ഇടപചാടുകനള സന്നുംബനസചന്റ് (5) ബചാങസൽ പ്ലചാമൂട്ടുകട, നപരനൂർ, നമലമചാകന്നും എ എനവീ നമൽവസലചാസത്തേസൽ നൽകസയസട്ടുള്ള കചാസന്റ് അന്നുംഗങ്ങൾ മറന്റ് പഞചായത്തുകളസലുന്നും തമസഴചാടസലുന്നും . ഉള്ളവരചാനണനതസൽ അന്നുംഗങ്ങളനട അർഹത സന്നുംബനസചന്റ് (6) ബചാങസൽ നസലവസൽ ഒഴസവള്ള നചാലന്റ് തസസകകളസൽ രജസസചാറനട 18/91 സർക്കുലർ വവവസകൾകന്റ് വസരുദ്ധമചായസ നസയമനന്നും നടത്തേചാൻ ശമസച എനതന്റ് . സന്നുംബനസചന്റ് (7) ബചാങസനല മുൻ ഭരണസമസതസ അന്നുംഗങ്ങൾകന്റ് ജസല്ലെചാ സഹകരണ ബചാങസൽ നസനന്നും ഒനരനകചാടസ രൂപയനട , നക.സസ.സസ. ജപസ നനചാടവീസന്റ് ലഭസചതസനന കുറസചന്നും വചായ്പയസൽ . ജഡവർഷനുള്ളതചായമുള്ള ആനരചാപണങ്ങൾ സന്നുംബനസചന്റ് **WA.No.714 of 2019** **11** (8) ബചാങസൽ നസലവസൽ നടനവരുന , അനനന്വേഷണങ്ങനള കുറസചന്നും ആയതസനന നസലവസനല അവസ മുൻ വർഷങ്ങളസൽ നടത്തേസയസട്ടുള്ള അനനന്വേഷണങ്ങൾ എനസവനയ സന്നുംബനസചന്റ്. ” 7. The learned Single Judge while considering tenability of the contentions against Ext.P1 referred to a decision of this Court in _**Cheranellur Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar** [1976 KLT_ 353]. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said decision were extracted in the impugned judgment. In this case, there is no challenge against the power of the Registrar to order an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act and in fact, the challenge was only against the manner in which it was exercised. In that context, it is to be noted that going by the decision in _**Cheranellur Co-operative Society** (supra)_ , an inquiry can be ordered under Section 65 of the Act only on specific point or points. This is in tune with the mandate under Rule 66(1)(c) of the Rules. Even **WA.No.714 of 2019** **12** otherwise, it is essential to specify the point or points lest it would not be possible to conduct a proper enquiry as the persons who are to face the inquiry would not be able to defend them in the inquiry in a meaningful manner. In the light of the decision in _**Cheranellur Co-operative Society** (supra)_ and the provisions under Rule 66(1)(c) of the Rules, Ext.P1 is scanned. The above extracted portions from Ext.P1 would reveal that the points which are directed to be enquired into are specifically made very clear therein. Hence, vagueness of points of enquiry cannot be raised to assail Ext.P1. 8. As a matter of fact, the main contention of the appellant, as noticed hereinbefore, is that most of the points or issues involved in various points directed to be inquired into are already covered by various judgments of this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in respect of the appointments effected in the Society, earlier such appointments were **WA.No.714 of 2019** **13** called in question before this Court in W.P.(C) No.724/2018 and the appointments were effected in tune with the judgments of this Court and as permitted thereunder. So also, with respect to the auction conducted in respect of the pledged gold items, it is submitted that alleging illegality in the auction proceedings, certain persons approached this Court and this Court ultimately found no illegality in such proceedings. Shortly stated, the contention is that in such circumstances in respect of those matters, an inquiry is actually impermissible. At the very outset, it is to be stated that none of the said judgments are produced along with the writ petition or along with the appeal. We will deal with the said issues a little later. 9. We will now consider the grievance of the appellant regarding the exercise of power vested with the Registrar under Section 65 of the Act that it was exercised by the 1[st] respondent without any application of mind. A **WA.No.714 of 2019** **14** perusal of Section 65 of the Act would reveal that an inquiry can be ordered by the Registrar either _suo motu_ or in contingencies enumerated in Clauses (b) to (f) therein. In the decision in _**Melukkara Service Co-operative Bank** (supra)_ , evidently a Division Bench of this Court held that merely because the Registrar is empowered to order for an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act he is not justified to order for an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a Society unless he applies his mind and arrives at a conclusion that for his subjective satisfaction, in the circumstances, an inquiry is essential. It is the contention of the appellant that such subjective satisfaction can be had only if on the issues an inquiry is conducted in person by the Registrar prior to the passing of an order for inquiry. It is submitted that such an inquiry is required as without such an inquiry it is not possible for the Registrar to arrive at a satisfaction as to whether an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act is required or not. In **WA.No.714 of 2019** **15** the light of the said submission, we have carefully gone through Section 65 of the Act. A scanning of the said provision would undoubtedly make it clear that no such prior inquiry as a prelude to an enquiry under Section 65 of the Act is envisaged thereunder. True that merely because the Registrar is empowered to order for an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a Society, he is not supposed to mechanically pass an order for such inquiry. In short, what is required under law, in view of the phraseology in Section 65 of the Act, is that before ordering for such an inquiry, the Registrar has to apply his mind to satisfy himself regarding the requirement and essentialty for such an inquiry. A perusal of Ext.P1 order would reveal that in the case on hand, in passing Ext.P1 order, the 1[st] respondent had stated that he is fully satisfied that an inquiry is required under Section 65 of the Act. The contention of the appellant is that, however, how the satisfaction is arrived is **WA.No.714 of 2019** **16** not discernible from the order and therefore, it is not valid. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contention that for arriving at subjective satisfaction in respect of the various points ordered to be inquired into, the 1[st] respondent ought to have conducted an inquiry before passing the order, of course, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to whether an inquiry is required or not. Needless to say that in such circumstances, according to the appellant, only on such inquiry and on subjective satisfaction that the Registrar could order an inquiry. We are afraid the said contention cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the provisions under Section 65 and Rule 66 do not contemplate double inquiry. What is required for passing an order under Section 65 of the Act is that the Registrar empowered to order an inquiry should apply his mind to satisfy himself in the given circumstances on various aspects as to whether an inquiry is essential and upon **WA.No.714 of 2019** **17** such satisfaction, he has to specify the point or points which are to be inquired into. Ext.P1 is to be scrutinised bearing in mind the said position. 10. It can be seen from Ext.P1 that the 1[st] respondent has specified points which are to be inquired into on that count. No illegality could be attributed to Ext.P1. 11. Now, we will consider whether there is any substance in the contention that it was mechanically passed. The contention is that the 1[st] respondent had merely ordered an inquiry taking into account the fact that an inquiry was recommended by the 2[nd] respondent. The appellant would rely on the decision in _**Melukkara Service Co-operative Bank** (supra)_ to contend that in such circumstances, Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside. As noticed hereinbefore, the decision in _**Ellakkal Service Cooperative Bank** (supra)_ is also relied on to buttress the contention that ordering an inquiry under Section 65 of the **WA.No.714 of 2019** **18** Act based on the recommendation of the Assistant Registrar to conduct such an inquiry is not proper and therefore, unsustainable. A careful scrutiny of the said decisions would reveal that looking into such a report by itself would not vitiate the order for an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act. The question is whether after looking into it the Registrar had gone forward to satisfy himself regarding the necessity for such an enquiry. In this case, for appreciating the contention another aspect which is discernible from the very first sentence in Ext.P1 order, has to be looked into. It reads thus:- “1258-ആന്നും നമ്പർ നചങൽ സർവവീസന്റ് സഹകരണ ബചാങസൽ നസരവധസ ക്രമനകടുകൾ .വസ.നക. . നടക്കുനതചായസ കചാണസചന്റ് ശവീ ശവീകുമചാർ ബഹ നകരള ഫയൽ നചയ ജഹനകചാടതസയസൽ റസടന്റ് നപറവീഷനസൽ നമൽ പരചാമർശന്നും (1) പ്രകചാരമുള്ള ഉത്തേരവസനനയന്നും, പരചാമർശന്നും (2) പ്രകചാരന്നും ഈ ആഫവീസസൽ ലഭസച പരചാതസകളനടയന്നും അടസസചാനത്തേസൽ നനയചാറസങര അസസസ്റ്റനന്റ് രജസസചാർ (ജനറൽ) നനചാടന്റ് **WA.No.714 of 2019** ## **19** ആയതന്റ് പരസനശചാധസചന്റ് റസനപചാർടന്റ് സമർപസകചാൻ നസർനദശസചസരുനതനുസരസചന്റ് പരചാമർശന്നും (3) പ്രകചാരന്നും റസനപചാർടന്റ് സമർപസചസട്ടുണന്റ്.” The said opening sentence itself would reveal that pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.15106/2017 and based on the complaints obtained the 1[st] respondent caused an enquiry through the 2[nd] respondent and the report referred to in reference No.3 in Ext.P1, is such a report. True that it also carried a recommendation for an enquiry under Section 65 of the Act. The fact is that the first respondent ordered and obtained such a report for the purpose of considering the question whether it is essential to order an enquiry under Section 65 of the Act. Ext.P1 would reveal that he examined the report referred as No.3 as well. In Ext.P1, it is stated thus:- “നമൽ വസ് കൾ പരസനശചാധസചതസൽ ടസ , വസഷയങ്ങനള സന്നുംബനസചന്നും സന്നുംഘത്തേസനന ഘടന **WA.No.714 of 2019** **20** പ്രവർത്തേനന്നും, സചാന്നുംബത്തേസക സസതസ എനസവ സന്നുംബനസചന്നും സന്നുംഘത്തേസൽ സഹകരണ നസയമന്നും വകുപന്റ് 65 പ്രകചാരമുള്ള ഒരു അനനന്വേഷണന്നും നടനത്തേണതന്റ് അൻഇവചാരവമചാനണനന്റ് പൂർണ്ണമചായന്നും . നബചാദ്ധവനപടസരസക്കുന നമൽ സചാഹചരവത്തേസൽ ചുവനട പറയന്നും പ്രകചാരന്നും ഉത്തേരവന്റ് പുറനപടുവസക്കുന.” In respect of the grievance of the appellant that since the recommendation was made by the 2[nd] respondent, without a further inquiry by him, the 1[st] respondent should not have ordered an inquiry, we are of the view that that contention is not supported by the ratio of the decision in _**Ellakkal Service Co-operative Bank**_ (supra). True that this Court held that there is no provision in Section 65 to initiate inquiry merely on such a recommendation and the decision is to the effect that even if such a recommendation is made, the Registrar has to apply his mind and to satisfy himself regarding the question as to whether it is essential to conduct an inquiry. Merely because it is recommended, he cannot mechanically pass **WA.No.714 of 2019** **21** an order. Taking into account the points formulated and the tenor of Ext.P1 order in the light of the provisions under Section 65 and the decision in _**Ellakkal Service Co-operative Bank**_ (supra), we do not find any reason to hold that the learned Single Judge had erred in upholding Ext.P1 and granting liberty to the respondents to go ahead with the inquiry in accordance with law. Thus, Ext.P1 would reveal that upon perusing the facts (വസ് കൾ ), based on such a report obtained by him, the 1[st] respondent got fully satisfied that on various points an inquiry under Section 65 is required and it is upon such satisfaction that he formulated the points in which inquiry is required specifically and ordered inquiry only on those specific points. True that the learned counsel raised a contention that in respect of certain matters which are involved in the points ordered to be inquired into, they are covered by judgments of this Court. We have already observed that such judgments are not produced by the **WA.No.714 of 2019** **22** appellant either along with the writ petition or with the writ appeal. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it will be open to the appellant to bring to the notice of the inquiry officer, as to matters which are squarely covered by the judgments of this Court. Needless to say that if any specific matter is already covered by judgments of this Court, certainly that cannot be re-opened and subjected to an inquiry. But at the same time, merely because in respect of some complaints regarding the auction of pledged gold ornaments, orders are there or that in respect of some appointments orders are there, cannot be a reason to hold that there need not be an inquiry into such dealings which are not actually covered by such judgment/judgments. We say so because on perusal of Ext.P1, it is evident that in view of nature of the points formulated in point No.(2) in Ext.P1, the allegation is that auction was conducted in respect of 800 items which were pledged with the Bank and further that certain pledgings **WA.No.714 of 2019** **23** were effected in fake names. Certainly, while conducting an inquiry into that matter, if in respect of any particular complaint relating to any particular auction, if it is covered by a judgment, there cannot be a further inquiry in respect of that which was subject matter of the judgment. On a careful consideration of the pleadings in the writ petition as also in this appeal, we do not find any contention that all the 800 dealings are covered by the judgments of this Court. So also, in respect of appointments, if in respect of any particular appointment effected in tune with the judgments of this Court, and if that inter party judgment had already attained finality, that also cannot be subjected to a further inquiry. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge would reveal that the learned Single Judge, despite the clear mandate in the Act and the Rules, taken care to ensure issue appropriate direction for scrupulous adherence to the procedures. The learned Single Judge directed that inquiry should be conducted in **WA.No.714 of 2019** **24** terms of Ext.P1 order strictly following the mandates in the Act and the Rules and fixed a time limit for conclusion of the inquiry. To ensure that principles of natural justice are strictly adhered to, the 1[st] respondent was also directed to serve a copy of the inquiry report on the appellant and the other members of the managing committee so as to enable them to offer their explanation on the report. That apart, the 1[st] respondent was also made to issue to them notice before considering the explanation and taking a decision as to the further course to be taken in the matter. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/13.03.2019