Consolidated writ petitions on supersession of MATSYAFED and subsequent elections (WP(C).Nos. 11310/2017, 13776/2017, 1461/2018, 1603/2018) – P. P. Shaji; Babu Antony; V. Dinakaran; Yesurajan v. The Registrar, Fisheries Co-operative Societies and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.11310 OF 2017(K)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**P.P.SHAJI, AGED 43 YEARS**| |---|---| ||**S/O.PURUSHAN, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE,**| ||**AZHIKODE P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR-680666.**| |**2**|**BABU ANTONY, S/O.ANTONY, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE,**| ||**THAIKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA-688530.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE REGISTRAR, FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,**| |---|---| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**THE JOINT DIRECTOR**| ||**FISHERIES, SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**3**|**YESURAJAN, PRESIDENT, KOCHUTHARA FISHERIES CO-**| ||**OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,**| ||**S/O.ANTONY, URAKKAMAKARA PURAYIDOM,**| ||**KOCHUTHARA P.O.-695526, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD - AG**| ||**SRI.N.RAGHURAJ**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).13776/2017(V), WP(C).1461/2018(G), WP(C).1603/2018(A), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1941** **WP(C).No.13776 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **V.DINAKARAN, AGED 71 YEARS EX-MLA, FORMER CHAIRMAN,MANAGING COMMITTEE, MATSYAFED,RESIDING AT 'SUDEEPAM', PUNNAPRA P.O.,PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.ANTONY ROBERT DIAS SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.NISHIL.P.S. KUM.NIHARIKA HEMA RAJ SRI.J.VIMAL SRI.A.VELAPPAN NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE REGISTRAR FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE JOINT DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, SOUTH ZONE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **3 YESURAJAN, PRESIDENT, KOCHUTHARA FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, S/O. ANTONY,URAKKAMAKARA PURAYIDOM, KOCHUTHARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD - AG** **SRI.N.RAGHURAJ** WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 3 **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).11310/2017(K), WP(C).1461/2018(G), WP(C).1603/2018(A), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 4 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.1461 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **V. DINAKARAN, AGED 71 YEARS EX-MLA, FORMER CHAIRMAN,MANAGING COMMITTEE, MATSYAFED,RESIDING AT 'SUDEEPAM, PUNNAPRA P.O.,PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.GEORGIE JOHNY SRI.NISHIL.P.S. SRI.A.VELAPPAN NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE REGISTRAR, FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (PROJECT),** **OFFICE OF THE FISHERIES DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 (ELECTORAL OFFICER, MATSYAFED)** - **3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF FISHERIES,** **OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF FISHERIES, KOLLAM, PIN 689690, (RETURNING OFFICER, MATSYAFED)** **4 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** **BY ADVS – SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD -AG** **SRI. N RAGHURAJ - SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).11310/2017(K), WP(C).13776/2017(V), WP(C).1603/2018(A), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1941** **WP(C).No.1603 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 P P SHAJI, S/O. PURUSHAN, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, AZHIKODE P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR - 680 666. 2 BABU ANTONY, S/O. ANTONY, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, THAIKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA - 688 530.** **BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.JOSE ANTONY SRI.S.SHIV SHANKAR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE REGISTRAR , FISHERIES CO-OP.SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES PROJECT OFFICE OF THE FISHERIES DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. (ELECTORAL OFFICER, MATSYAFED) 3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF FISHERIES OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF FISHERIES, KOLLAM (RETURNING OFFICER, MATSYAFED) 691001 4 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, AG, SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).11310/2017(K), WP(C).13776/2017(V), WP(C).1461/2018(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 6 ## **JUDGMENT** All these cases relate to supersession of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Kerala State Co-operative Federation of Fisheries Development Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MATSYAFED’ for brevity); with two among them, namely WP(C)NoS.11310/2017 and 13776/2017, having been filed challenging the orders of supersession, while the other two, namely, WP(C)Nos.1461/2018 and 1603/2018 having been filed by the same petitioners, however, challenging the subsequent election notifications. 2. Before I go forward, I must record that WP(C)Nos.1461/2018 and 1603/2018 will become necessary for a detailed consideration by this Court only if WP(C)Nos.11310/2017 and 13776/2017 are ordered in favour of the petitioners. This is because, if the latter two writ petitions are not allowed, then the former two, which WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 7 challenge the subsequent election notifications would be unnecessary of detailed consideration since the subsequent elections to the Managing Committee is only a corollary consequence. 3. I, therefore, propose to deal with WP(C)Nos.11310/2017 and 13776/2017 first, of which I propose to treat WP(C)No.13776/2017 as the lead case; and consequently, all references to parties and documents in this judgment will be as appearing in this Writ Petition unless specifically mentioned otherwise. 4. The petitioner in WP(C)No.13776/2017 is stated to be the erstwhile Chairman of the MATSYAFED while the petitioners in WP(C)No.11310/2017 are stated to be its members. The order impugned in these cases is the same, namely, the order of supersession of the Managing Committee issued by the Director of Fisheries (who is the functional Registrar as far as MATSYAFED is concerned), dated WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 8 03.03.2017, a copy of which has been appended to WP(C)No.11310/2017 as Ext.P5 and as Ext.P9 in WP(C)No.13776/2017. 5. I have heard the learned Advocate General Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, assisted by Sri.Muhammed Hashim-the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Department of Co-opearation; Sri.O.V.Maniprasad and Sri.Gilbert George Correya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petitions and Sri.N.Raghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent in both cases. 6. Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.11310/2017, challenges the impugned order broadly on two grounds: a) that, since the Statutory Authority has not consulted the Circle Co-operative Union and the Financing Banks, as is mandated under the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Kerala Co- WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 9 operative Societies Act (KCS Act for short), the entire process is vitiated and the impugned order will have to fail. b) that, since the impugned Supersession Order was consequent to the proceedings under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (KCS Act for short) and since the Authorities have proceeded contrary to the manner and method as declared by this Court in **Melukkara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd No.PT.152 and Another v. Joint Registrar (General), District Co-operative Society [2018(2)KHC143(DB)],** the edifice of the proceedings fail and consequently that the impugned order must also fall. 7. As far as Sri.Gilbert George Correya is concerned, he adopts the afore submissions, adding that the allegations levelled against the petitioners by the competent Statutory Authorities are completely untenable on facts WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 10 and that he will be able to demonstrate before this Court, through the materials available, that their factual conclusions cannot be found believable or credible. He, therefore, additionally prays that this Court enter into the merits of the factual circumstances and allegations mentioned in the impugned order and find them to be without basis. 8. Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, in substantiation of his contentions regarding statutorily mandated consultative process ought to have been followed by the Director of Fisheries contends that even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents, it is not even mentioned as to how and in what manner the Circle Co-operative Union or the Financing Banks have been consulted. He says that, as is clear therefrom, even though Exts.R1(f), R1(h) and R1(g) have been produced on record by the official Authorities, there is nothing to show WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 11 whether they were, in fact, served on the Circle Union or on the Financing Banks and consequently that a mere assertion would not be sufficient, thus justifying an adverse inference from this Court to be drawn that there was no such consultation. He concedes that however, after this matter was heard at one instance, an additional counter affidavit had been placed on record by the official respondents, wherein certain additional documents have been produced in an attempt to show that the letters issued to the Circle Union as well as the Financing Banks were served on them. He points out to Exts.R1(m) to R1(q), which have been produced along with the additional affidavit and says that, in fact, going by those documents, the case of the petitioners gets even better. 9. According to him, as is clear from Ext.R1(m), which is a report obtained from the Department of Posts, the weight of the letters, WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 12 claimed to have been issued by the Director of Fisheries to the Financing Banks, shown as item No.14, 15 and 16 therein, all weigh 20 gms only and he thus asserts that it is luculent that they did not contain any of the necessary documents, including the reports, the objections or the views of the Registrar, which alone would have let the Financing Banks to enter into an effective and proper opinion. He further says that, as is irrefutable from Exts.R1(O) and R1(P), the letters issued to two among the Financing Banks were received only on 01.03.2017 and 27.02.2017 respectively, while the impugned order was issued on 03.03.2017. He says that this again demonstrates that there was no consultation at all, much less an effective consultation; and then he goes on to show this Court Ext.R1(p), wherein, one of the Financing Banks, namely, the National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation, has WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 13 recorded that they have been furnished no documents along with the letter issued by the Director and therefore, that they are unable to comment on the proposed action. On this issue, Sri.Mani Prasad finally points out to Ext.R1(q) to submit that last of the Financing Banks has informed the Director that even though they have received the letter, they had not consented that they would act as directors of the MATSYAFED. He thus contends very vehemently that the process of consultation has been a farce and prays that this Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order. He cites for support of this contentions the judgment of this Court in **Sahadevan v. Padmanabhan [2004(1)KLT192]** , **State of Kerala and Others v. Board of Directors Urukunnu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, Kollam and Others [2013(2)KHC 201]** and **Mariyamma George and Others v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society and Others [2010(3)KHC307]** . WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 14 10. On the question of validity of Section 65 enquiry is concerned, Sri.O.V.Maniprasad submits, with specific reference to Ext.P2 in WP(C)No.11310/2017, that personal satisfaction of the Registrar, before having invoked the provisions of Section 65, is not even recorded therein and therefore, that the entire proceedings, which culminated in an alleged final order under Section 65 of the KCS, is totally untenable and without legitimacy. He then says that, as is clear from the impugned order of supersession, the Registrar has issued it solely based on Section 65 enquiry and consequently, that he could have taken action under Section 32 of the KCS Act only after having followed due procedure under Section 65(6) of the said Act. 11. Sri.Mani Prasad further contends, relying on the judgment of this Court in **Kandalloor Farmers' Service Co-operative Bank** WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 15 ## **Ltd v. Joint Registrar [2008(4) KLT 856],** that before the Director could have taken a decision to invoke Section 32 on the basis of Section 65 enquiry, he ought to have issued a specific order for such purpose and could not have immediately moved into the supersession procedure as if he was acting unbridled under the provisions of Section 65(6) of the KCS Act. He thus concludes his submissions by saying that these writ petitions be allowed. 12. Sri.Gilbert George Correya, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.13776/2017, also adopts the submissions of Sri.O.V.Mani Prasad as afore, adding that the impugned order would clearly show that, factually, an order of supersession could not have been made against the erstwhile Managing Committee. He says that the allegations made in the said order are incorrect, not supported by relevant documents, based on irrelevant and WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 16 unconnected matters and guided solely by political consideration, so as to obtain the result of supersession of the validly elected Managing Committee. He proceeds to add that, in fact, the report given to the petitioners by the statutory Authorities, as being a Section 65 report, is not a final order but which merely contains a precis of their findings and observations and therefore, cannot qualify to be called an enquiry report. He consequently pleads that this Court enter into the merits of the factual allegations contained in the impugned order and find them to be totally baseless and resultantly set aside the supersession order. 13. In answer to the afore submissions, the learned Advocate General, Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, commenced his arguments by saying that Section 32(2) of the KCS Act requires the Registrar to consult the Financing Banks and the Circle Co-operative Union or the State Co- WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 17 operative Union, as the case may be, before passing an order under Section 32(1) of the KCS Act. He says that a plethora of judgments of this Court and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have established it beyond doubt that what is enjoined upon the Registrar is to consult these entities, but that he is not obligated to wait endlessly for their reply or views before taking further action. He asserts that, in the case at hand, the Director had issued letters, enclosing all relevant materials and reports, to both the Circle Co-operative Union and the Financing Banks, as is clear from Exts.R1(d) and R1(f) to R1(h) and that, as is evidenced from Ext.R1(e) reply issued by the State Co-operative Union, they have expressly admitted and acknowledged that the action against the erstwhile Managing Committee of the MATSYAFED is imperative, thus granting their express consent for the same. He adds that, as regards the Financing Banks are WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 18 concerned, even though they were served with Exts.R1(g) and R1(h) letters, they chose not to reply and that therefore, the Registrar was constrained to issue an order without waiting for their opinion. He contends that it has been well established by several judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and of this Court, including **Ram Tawakya Singh v. State of Bihar and Others [(2013) 16 SCC 206]** and **R.Thulaseedharan and another v. State of Kerala and Others [AIR 1995 Kerala 202]** that in such cases, the Registrar was well within his powers to act under the mandate of Section 32(1) of the KCS Act without having to wait _ad infinitum_ for the reply to be received either from the Circle Co-operative Union or from the Financing Banks. 14. On the question of Section 65 enquiry, the learned Advocate General submits that the petitioner in WP(C)No.13776/2017 is completely foreclosed from advancing any such arguments in WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 19 this case because he had earlier approached this Court challenging the notice issued to him under the said Section by filing WP(C)No.38904/2016, which was, however, dismissed by this Court through Ext.P6 judgment and confirmed in Ext.P7 appellate judgment and further because when he was thereafter issued with a notice under Section 32(1), he had chosen to challenge the same also by filing WP(C)No.5715/2017, which culminated in Ext.P8 judgment. He says that these issues are thus no longer _res integra_ and cannot be raised by any of the petitioners because they are all acting together and are concededly sailing with each other. The learned Advocate General then proceeds that as regards the petitioners in WP(C)No.11310/2017 are concerned, they cannot raise these issues independently since they were fully aware of the earlier proceedings initiated at the instance of the Chairman of the erstwhile Managing Committee WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 20 and that they had chosen not to challenge the same knowing fully well the views of this Court in Exts.P6 and P7 judgments. 15. The learned Advocate General, therefore, submits that these writ petitions are completely incapable of further prosecution and prays that they be dismissed; adding that, in any event of the matter, since the petitioners concede specifically in the pleadings in WP(C)Nos.1461/2018 & 1603/2018 that once fresh elections to the Managing Committee had been completed, WP(C)Nos.11310/2017 & 13776/2017 have become infructuous, and therefore they be dismissed on that ground also. 16. Sri.Sudhakara Prasad concludes his submissions by asserting that the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with respect to the merits of the factual allegations and findings in the impugned order, WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 21 since these are in the factual realm and which have been settled by the competent Statutory Authority, who is also the final fact finding Authority, through a proper process. 17. Sri.N.Raghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, who is the complainant, at the instance of whom the proceedings against the Managing Committee were initiated, submits that these writ petitions are not maintainable because only three among the 22 Managing Committee members have approached this Court; consequently, indicating that the other 19 have acceded to the orders of supersession. He submits that there is an allegation in the writ petition that the complaint preferred by his client is incompetent because it was made in his individual capacity but shows this Court that his client was authorized through a resolution of his Parent Society, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.R1(e) WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 22 along with his counter affidavit and therefore, that the complaint preferred by him was not in his personal capacity but issued representing the Society, of which he was the President of its Managing Committee. He, therefore, prays that these writ petitions be dismissed finding it to be not maintainable. 18. I have evaluated the afore submissions and have also examined the relevant documents and materials available on record. 19. Broadly, there are only three or four issues that require this Court’s attention. 20. First among them is whether the complaint preferred by the 3[rd] respondent, that led to Section 65 proceedings against the erstwhile Managing Committee of the MATSYAFED, of which the petitioners are the President and Members respectively, is competent in law and whether this could be the basis on which its supersession could have been ordered. Even WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 23 though the petitioners have a specific contention that the 3[rd] respondent, who is the complainant, could not have maintained a personal complaint leading to the initiation of action against the Managing Committee of MATSYAFED, it is the specific assertion of Sri.N.Raghuraj that his client had preferred the same as authorised by the Society, which is evident from Ext.R1(e). Pertinently, Ext.R1(e) is not under challenge in any of these cases and there is nothing to show that the authority given to the 3[rd] respondent is, in any manner, without proper basis. I am, therefore, impelled to the view, there being no other circumstances to prove otherwise, that the contention of the petitioners that the complaint of the 3[rd] respondent could not have been accepted by the competent Authorities cannot hold water. 21. That apart, even assuming that there is no such complaint, it is now well settled in law WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 24 and it is indubitable from the phraseology employed in Section 32 of the KCS Act that the Registrar does not require to be guided by a complaint or a report to initiate an action under the said Section. Of course, when I say this, I am fully aware of the submissions of Sri.O.V.Maniprasad that the proceedings herein should be construed to be one under Section 65(6) of the KCS, leading to a supersession order, rather than an independent supersession proceeding. I am, however, of the view that this would not, in any manner, alter the position and therefore, even if the complaint of the 3[rd] respondent is found to be technically incompetent for any reason the proceedings or the impugned order would still find statutory support to stand, subject to the other contentions against its validity. 22. That takes me to the next question as to whether consultation in these cases is WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 25 proper. This is a very vital aspect since it is the backbone on which the entire proceedings now rest. If I am to hold that consultation is, for any cause vitiated, then certainly, under the rigour of Section 32(2) of the KCS, the proceedings and the resultant impugned order would collapse. 23. On this issue, it becomes enjoined on this Court to evaluate and consider the merits of the documents available on record to assess the consultation, if any, had been proper. Even though the petitioners have a case that in the initial counter pleadings, the official respondents have not produced anything to show that the Circle Union and the Financing Banks have been addressed properly, the additional affidavit filed by the official respondents, thereafter placed on record, encloses certain other documents. I, therefore, propose to go through the documents as are available both in WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 26 the counter pleadings and the additional counter pleadings before I take a final view. 24. The documents available in the original counter affidavit, namely Ext.R1(d), is a letter issued by the Director to the Circle Cooperative Union; while Exts.R1(f), R1(g) and R1(h) appear to be the letters issued to the three Financing Banks. There is no dispute that Ext.R1(b) had been received by the Circle Cooperative Union, from the fact that they had made a reply, namely, Ext.R1(c), there is some doubt as to whether Exts.R1(f) to R1(h) had been properly served and received by the Financing Banks. Before I come to the latter, I will consider the former contention regarding consultation of the Circle Co-operative Union. In Ext.R1(d), more than 13 proceedings are referred to and as a footnote, in the last page, these documents are shown to have been enclosed along with it. Going by the references made, it WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 27 is clear that all relevant documents, including Section 65 enquiry Report, the objections of the petitioners and such other germane materials have been enclosed therewith. On examining the reply that has been issued by the State Cooperative Union, namely Ext.R1(e), its competent Authorities have clearly concurred with the opinion of the Director to supersede the erstwhile Managing Committee of the MATSYAFED. When I say this, I am not oblivious to the submissions of Sri.O.V.Maniprasad that concurrence of the State Co-operative Union was a farcical affair because Ext.R1(3) is dated 23.02.2017 and was received by the Circle Cooperative Union a day later but that Ext.R1(e) was issued by them on 25.02.2017 itself. The contention of Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, I am aware, is that this can never be seem to be a proper consultation and that the views of the Circle Co-operative Union was merely guided by the WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 28 dictates of the Director. I will deal with these submissions after dealing with the latter limb of this contention. 25. As far as the Financing Banks are concerned, there is no doubt that stand of the Director is that he had issued Exts.R1(f) and R1(g) letters to them but had not received their replies and therefore, that he had validly proceeded to issue the supersession order on 03.03.2017. This was contested strongly by the petitioners, which compelled the official respondents to file an additional counter affidavit dated 12.06.2017 producing certain other documents. Among such documents, Ext.R1(m) is a postal record showing despatch of the letters to the Financing Banks; while Exts.R1(o) to R1(q) are certain replies received by the Director from the said Banks. Looking through Ext.R1(o), one of the Financing Banks, namely NCDC, had informed the Director that they WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 29 received his letter only on 01.03.2017 but does not record any opinion of theirs therein. As regards Ext.R1(p) is concerned, the National Minorities Development and Financial Corporation says that they received the communication from the Registrar on 27.02.2017, but replied to it only through the letter dated 06.03.2017, informing the Director that his communication did not contain any of the details regarding the irregularities committed by the MATSYAFED. As far as the third Financing Bank, namely, the National Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation is concerned, reply, namely Ext.R1(q) dated 06.03.2017, merely states that their nominee is not on the Board of the MATSYAFED, which perhaps would indicate that they have nothing more to offer. 25. In the background of what I have seen above, when I assess the question of consultation, though the reply of the Circle Co- WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 30 operative Union appears to have been made in less than 24 or 48 hours, that by itself would not be a reason for this Court to conclude that the consultative process is vitiated. There is no other impairing circumstances which the petitioners are able to point out to indicate that the State Co-operative Union had acted in any manner contrary to their obligations under Section 32(2); and going by Ext.R1(c), produced along with the counter affidavit of the official respondents, the competent Authority of the said Union appears to have considered the documents enclosed along with Ext.R1(d) and have expressly made an opinion favouring the supersession of erstwhile Managing Committee of the MATSYAFED. Therefore, I cannot find favour with the submissions of the petitioners relating to the consultation as regards the State Co-operative Union is concerned. 27. That said, the question of consultation WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 31 with the Financing Banks stand on a different footing because it is obvious from Exts.R1(p) and R1(q) that though two among the said Banks had received the letters addressed to hem by the Director, they have chosen not to issue a reply until 06.03.2017 (in Ext.R1(q) the date is, in fact, shown as 06.03.2018, which the petitioners say not a mistake, but that it was issued on the said date since the official respondents produced that letter only after filing of the Writ Petition). Be that as it may, as is clear from Exts.R1(o) to R1(q), none of the Financing Banks have objected to the action proposed by the Registrar; in fact, two among them have, through Ext.R1(o) and R1(q), virtually said nothing about such action, inferentially creating an impression that they do not oppose the same. However, it is only in Ext.R1(p) that the National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation had taken a stand that no details WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 32 about the irregularities alleged against the erstwhile Managing Committee of the MATSYAFED have been furnished to them and they have sought for certain additional information, including the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the relevant documents. This letter certainly provides credence, at least _prima facie,_ to the allegations made by Sri.O.V.Maniprasad that the Registrar's letter issued to the Financing Banks contains no documents or supporting materials. This certainly is a factor in favour of the contentions petitioners, but I am constrained not to do so for the reason that Ext.R1(p) has been issued only on 06.03.2017, which is much after the period given by the Director in his communication to them calling for their comments. 28. I say this because, even in Ext.R1(p), the date on which the communication from the Registrar is received by them has been shown as WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 ## 33 27.02.2017, but they still waited for the 7[th] day, namely 06.03.2017, to issue letter which obviously; and as they are also certainly aware, could not have reached the Director within the time offered in his letter. I cannot, therefore, find that merely on account of Ext.R1(p), consultation with the Financing Banks are corrupted and this is more so because, the State Co-operative Union, as seen above, has unequivocally approved such action. 29. Once I conclude so, I am enjoined to consider the validity of Section 65 proceedings. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the petitioner in WP(C)No.13776/2017 cannot raise this contention at all in these proceedings, because he had earlier approached this Court challenging it which had been repelled through Exts.P6 and P7 judgments. Interestingly, he, thereafter, challenged the notice received under Section 32(1) also before WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 34 this Court, which also went against him, as is evidenced from Ext.P8 judgment. These issues are, therefore, completely foreclosed as far as the petitioner in WP(C)No.13776/2017 is concerned and the only surviving question is whether the petitioners in WP(C)No.11310/2017 can raise these issues as being _res nova,_ contending that they were not aware of this. 30. In fact, the attempt of Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)No.11310/2017, is to argue that his clients were not aware of the earlier judgments obtained by the petitioners in other cases and that they are, therefore, entitled to submit on the validity of these proceedings also. Even though I am provisionally of the view that this submission cannot be accepted to be credible, I still heard Sri.O.V.Maniprasad on this issue, so as to dispel any apprehension that his clients have not been given their due WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 35 in terms of law. The submissions of Sri.O.V.Maniprasad on this issue is that none of the ingredients, as are mandatorily required for causing an enquiry under Section 65 of the KCS, have been satisfied in these cases and he relies on the judgment of this Court in **Melukkara** **Service Co-operative Bank** (supra) in support of this submission. According to him, personal satisfaction of the Registrar, before having issued the said notice, has not been recorded therein and the specific reasons which impelled him to cause an enquiry have not even been alluded to, apart from making a vague reference to certain earlier proceedings, including preliminary reports. He thus contended that, as has been declared by this Court in **Melukkara Service Co-operative Bank** (supra), when the Registrar makes an order under Section 65, his personal satisfaction has to be first recorded and it is not sufficient that he merely follows WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 36 the reports of the Assistant Registrar or any other Authority, since otherwise what is available would be the satisfaction of such Authority adopted by the Registrar and not his personal satisfaction. 31. Even though at the first blush these submissions may seem attractive, I am afraid that it loses its attractiveness soon thereafter because, this Court has, in Ext.P6 judgment, dealt with these contentions in detail and has found conclusively against them. Moreover, the allegations made in Ext.P5 and the matters sought to be enquired into have been clearly mentioned therein and satisfaction of the Registrar in calling for such an enquiry is also indicated in express terms. This is not a case where the Registrar was not personally satisfied that an enquiry was required or that he had merely relied upon the earlier documents, including reports, but he appears to have WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 37 clearly put his mind to the gravity of the allegations and decided that an enquiry is necessary. Hence, the submissions of the petitioners edified on **Melukkara Service Cooperative Bank** (supra) would be of no avail to them in these cases. 32. That said, as I have already indicated above, normally, adjudication of the worth of the Section 65 enquiry _qua_ the super-session order would not be necessary because it is ineluctable from Section 32 of the KCS Act that the Registrar is not governed or trammelled by such enquiry before ordering super-session. However, in these cases, there is some justification in the petitioners making this attempt because, as rightly pointed out by Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, the proceedings that led to the impugned order is certainly based on Section 65 enquiry and consequently must be construed to be under the provisions of Section 65(6) of the WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 38 KCS Act. In this context, the other submissions of Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, relying upon **Kandalloor** **Farmers Service Co-operative Bank** (supra) have some relevance because his contention is that before moving on to the stage of supersession, the Director ought to have taken a view specifically under Section 65(6) of the KCS Act and ought to have issued an order at that stage. 33. This submission, of course, will have to be decided in the declarations of law in **Kandalloor Farmers Service Co-operative Bank** (supra) and the views of the learned Single Judge of this Court are available in paragraph 12 thereof. However, contrary to the submissions of Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, the learned Single Judge did not conclude therein that the Registrar is enjoined to make an order in between the Section 65 and Section 32 proceedings, but what was found therein was that if an order under Section 65 had already been made, then the Registrar WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 39 could not simply pretend to be oblivious to the same and initiate the supersession proceedings under Section 32 of the KCS Act. In fact, I am of the view that the afore citation would not aid the petitioners at all but, on the contrary, would go against their contentions because it is conceded in this case that the Registrar has adverted to the Section 65 enquiry report in detail and then proceeded to the Section 32 stage based on the findings therein, invoking Section 65(6) of the KCS Act. I cannot, therefore, accept these submissions of Sri.O.V.Maniprasad. 34. The other issue remaining in this purlieu is as to whether the petitioners in WP(C)No.11310/2017 can challenge the Section 65 proceedings independently. I am afraid that the answer of this Court to this is firmly to the negative because; for one, the earlier judgment of this Court concludes the issue and for the WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 40 second, I cannot find Ext.P2 order to be, in any manner, contrary to the mandate of this Court in **Melukkara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd** (supra). These contentions also, therefore, are answered against the petitioners. 35. The surviving issues are now based on the contentions of Sri.N.Raghuraj, who contends that these Writ Petitions are not maintainable because only three among the members of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the MATSYAFED have come to this Court. I do not propose to answer this affirmatively, but suffice to say that merely because only one or three members are before this Court, validity of the impugned supersession proceedings cannot be considered does not appeal to me. This is because, as rightly answered by Sri.O.V.Maniprasad and Sri.Gilbert George Correya, even if one of the members are able to establish and demonstrate that the order of supersession is bad for any WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 41 reason, then the whole order has to go and it will be then up to the members of the Managing Committee to decide whether they want to remain as members or to resign, if they are not interested. On this ground, therefore, I cannot find these Writ Petitions to be not maintainable and consequently repel these contentions made by Sri.N.Raghuraj. Consequently and for the afore reasons, I dismiss these Writ Petitions approving the orders impugned therein. 36. Once I find that the supersession order impugned in WP(C)Nos.13776/2017 and 11310/2017 is without fault, further consideration of the contentions in WP(C)Nos.1461/2018 and 1603/2018 become completely unnecessary, since they have been filed praying that the subsequent elections conducted to elect the new Managing Committee of MATSYAFED be interdicted. Further, I am also told by the learned Advocate General that elections are now complete and that a new WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 42 Managing Committee is in charge; and I, consequently, close these two Writ Petitions without entering into the merits of any of the contentions raised therein. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 43 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11310/2017 ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST THE MATSYAFED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 14/07/2016. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/10/2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE RESPONDENT AS ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08/02/2017 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 32(1) OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF MATSYAFED. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF MATSYAFED ON 14/02/2017. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016. EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/02/2011 OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED TO THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE FISHERMEN DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION. EXHIBIT P8A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 1.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF MATSYAFED. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1 A A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/8/2016. WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 44 EXHIBIT R1 B A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 9/9/2016. EXHIBIT R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION/DECISION DATED 15/6/2016 OF THE KOCHUTHURA SOCIETY. EXHIBIT R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR. EXHIBIT R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.2.2017. EXHIBIT R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO NCDC. EXHIBIT R1 G TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO NMDFC. EXHIBIT R1 H TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO NBCFDC. EXHIBIT R1 I TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO. 25941/G2/2013/LBR DATED 5/2/2014. EXHIBIT R1 J TRUE COPY OF THE CDRF STATEMENT SHOWING TH ASSISTANCE GIVE UNDER CDRF DURING THE PERIOD FROM 2010-2011 TO 2016 SEPTEMBER. EXHIBIT R1 K TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS REGARDING THE SCHEMES GIVEN BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED. EXHIBIT R1 I TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION/RESOLUTION DATED 15/8/2016. WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 45 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13776/2017 ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE 3RD| |---|---| ||RESPONDENT AGAINST THE MATSYAFED BEFORE THE| ||1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.07.2016.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F3/11472/2016| ||DATED 01.10.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT| ||APPOINTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS ENQUIRY| ||OFFICER.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THEREPORT DATED 26.12.2016 OF| ||THE 2ND RESPONDENT SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08.02.2017| ||ISSUED UNDER SECTION 32 (1) OF THE KERALA| ||CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.02.2017| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2017| ||IN WPC NO.38904/2016.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL| ||NO. 247/2017 DATED 07.02.2017.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2017| ||IN WPC NO.5715/2017.| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2017 OF| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR| ||2015-2016.| |EXHIBIT P11|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.02.2011 OF| ||THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED TO THE| ||SECRETARY, KERALA STATE FISHERMEN DEBT| ||RELIEF COMMISSION.| |EXHIBIT P12|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.03.2011| WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 46 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 01.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF MATSYAFED. ## RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1 A A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2016. EXHIBIT R1 B A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 09.09.2016. EXHIBIT R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION/DECISION DATED 15.06.2016 OF THE KOCHUTHURA SOCIETY. EXHIBIT R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR. EXHIBIT R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.02.2017. EXHIBIT R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF NCDC. EXHIBIT R1 G TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO NMDFC. EXHIBIT R1 H TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF NBCFDC. EXHIBIT R1 I TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO.25941/G2/2013/LBR DATED 05.02.2014. EXHIBIT R1 J TRUE COPY OF THE CDRF STATEMENT SHOWING THE ASSISTANCE GIVEN UNDER CDRF DURING THE PERIOD FROM 2010-2011 TO 2016 SEPTEMBER. EXHIBIT R1 K TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS REGARDING THE SCHEMES GIVEN BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED. EXHIBIT R1 L TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION/RESOLUTION DATED 15.08.2016. EXHIBIT R1 M TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON SPEED POST RECEIVED FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. EXHIBIT R1 N TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE. WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 47 EXHIBIT R1 O TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM NCDC. EXHIBIT R1 P TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM NMDFC. EXHIBIT R1 Q TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM NBCFDC. EXHIBIT R1 R TRUE COPY OF COMMON TAPAL VOLUME III FOR THE PERIOD FROM 02.03.2017 TO 10.04.2017. WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 48 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1461/2018 ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: |EXHIBIT P1.|A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE| |---|---| ||YESURAJAN BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON| ||14.07.2016.| |EXHIBIT P2.|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2016| ||OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT AS ENQUIRY OFFICER.| |EXHIBIT P3.|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08.02.2017| ||ISSUED UNDER SECTION 32(1) OF THE KERALA| ||CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT TO THE CHAIRMAN| ||OF MATSYAFED.| |EXHIBIT P4.|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE| ||PETITIONER ON 14.02.2017.| |EXHIBIT P5.|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2017| ||OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P6.|TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION| ||DATED 23.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH| ||RESPONDENT.| RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: |EXHIBIT R1(A)|A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED| |---|---| ||09/09/2016| |EXHIBIT R1(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION/RESOLUTION DATED| ||08/11/2016| |EXHIBIT R1(C)|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY VIDE LETTER NO.| ||ADM(1)/1902/17 DATED 25/02/2017| |EXHIBIT R1(D)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.02.2017| ||ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO NCDC| |EXHIBIT R1(E)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.02.2017| ||ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO NMDFC| |EXHIBIT R1(F)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.02.2017| ||ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO NBCFDC| |EXHIBIT R1(G)|TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT CERTIFICATE| WPC 1131017,13776/17,1603/18&1461/18 49 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1603/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE YESURAJAN BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 14.07.2016. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08.02.2017 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 32(1) OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF MATSYAFED. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF MATSYAFED ON 14.02.2017. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 23.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.