E.J. Thomas and Antony v State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 9TH MAGHA, 1939** **WA.No. 77 of 2018 IN WPC. 40266/2017** **(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 40266/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA)** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 E.J.THOMAS,** **S/O.E.T.JOSEPH, AGED 63 YEARS, EDATHICHIRA, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE-688 527.** - **2 ANTONY, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS, PATTUKULANGARA, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE-688 527.** ## **BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.** **3. SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.974, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 527, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.HOOD R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.ISHA R3 BY ADV. SRI.AMAL KASHA R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2018 ALONG WITH W.A.NOS.165/2018 & 179/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ss _**[C.R.]**_ ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J &** ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J** **--------------------------------** ----------------------------------- ## **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** ------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of January, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _**P.N.Ravindran, J**_ These writ appeals arise from the interim orders passed in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017, 40571 of 2017 and 366 of 2018 respectively. The appellants are the petitioners in the respective writ petitions. They were members of the managing committee of Sreekandamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank” for short). The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.40266 of 2017 and 40571 of 2017, two in number, are one and the same. They along with the four writ petitioners in W.P. (C)No.366 of 2018 and five others were elected to the managing committee of the Bank in the elections held on 24.12.2016. The managing committee thus elected took charge on 27.12.2016. The term of the managing committee would have in the ordinary course come to end only on 23.12.2021. 2. After the managing committee of the Bank, elected on 24.12.2016 took charge, an enquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 2 Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for short) was conducted by the Unit Inspector, Muhamma who is presently the Administrator of the bank, pursuant to the orders passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Alappuzha. After enquiry, he submitted Ext.P1 report dated 18.11.2016. He had in Ext.P1 report stated that without obtaining the prior permission of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the managing committee of the Bank had purchased 3.64 Ares of land for a total sale consideration of 14,40,000/- from one K.N.Anjaneyan₹ Namboothiri and that it has in turn resulted in a loss to the bank, to the tune of 14,40,000/-. He had also recommended recovery of the₹ said amount from the persons responsible, together with interest at 18% per annum. 3. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Alapuzha isused Ext.P4 show cause notice dated 05.05.2017 produced in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017, calling upon ten members of the managing committee of the Bank and two of its employees to show cause why the sum of 1,20,000/-₹ each should not be recovered from them together with interest @ 19% per annum. Sri.M.A.James Kutty, one among the 11 members of the managing committee elected on 24.12.2016 was not proceeded **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 3 against for the reason that he had not signed the minutes of the meetings held on 31.03.2016 and 30.06.2016 when the managing committee took the decision to purchase the disputed lands. The persons sought to be surcharged under Section 68(1) of the Act submitted individual representations. By Ext.P5 notice dated 17.05.2017, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Alappuzha invited the persons sought to be surcharged for a personal hearing on 31.05.2017. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017 appeared and submitted Exts.P6 and P7 statements dated 31.05.2017 and 30.05.2017 respectively. The first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017 had in paragraph 9 of Ext.P6 stated as follows: “¦ÏÄßÈÞW ¥Bí ¨ µøcBZ ÕcµñÎÞÏß ÉÀßAÃæÎKᢠ¦ÕÖcæÎCßW ¥BÏáæ¿ çÈÞGàØßW ÉùEßGáU çÉÞæÜ ¼ßÜïÄÜ ç¼ÞÏßaí ØVæÕî È¿Jß ÕßÜ ÈßVÃÏ¢ È¿JÃæÎKᢠ¯æÄCßÜᢠçÉÞøÏíε{âæICßW ÕØñá ©¿Î ØbÏ¢ ØNÄߺîí ¥ùßÏߺîßGáUçÉÞæÜ ¥çgÙJßÈá ÄæK ÕØñá Äßæøc ÈWµÞX ©ÄøÕÞµÃæÎKᢠ¾Bæ{ çÎW µÞøÃB{ÞW ÈßVgß×í¿ È¿É¿ßµ{ßW ÈßKí ²ÝßÕÞAÃæÎKᢠÕßÈÏÉâVÕîí¢ ¥çÉfßAáKá. ” 4. The 2[nd] petitioner in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017 had likewise in the last paragraph at page 4 of Ext.P7 stated as follows: “ÕØñá ÕÞBßÏÄßW ©IÞÏ ÈcâÈĵZ ÎâÜ¢ ÌÞCßÈá Ø ¢ÍÕßAÞX ØÞicÄÏáU È×í¿JßÈá ÄÞX ©ÄøÕÞÆßJb¢ ¯æx¿áAáKÄÞÏᢠÌÞCßÈá ¦ÕÖcÎßÜïÞæÏKí ¥¢·àµøßAáK Éf **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 4 ¢ ¿ß ÕØñá È×íç¿ÞJøÕÞÆßÄbJßW Äßøßæµ ®¿áJáæµÞUÞæÎKᢠÕØñá ©¿ÎÏÞÏßøáK dÖà.æµ.®X.¦¾í¼çÈÏX ÈOâÄßøß ØNÄÉdÄÕᢠÌÞCßÈá ÈwµßÏßGáIí. ” 5. The statements above referred to are to the effect that the seller K.N.Anjaneyan Namboothiri is willing to buy back the property and that he has expressed his intention to buy back the property. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Alapuzha heard the petitioners and others and thereafter passed Ext.P8 order dated 03.06.2017, surcharging the petitioners and ten others under Section 68(2) of the Act. By that order, ten among the eleven members of the managing committee of the Bank elected on 24.12.2016 and two of the employees of the Bank were called upon to pay the sum of Rs.1,20,000/- each, together with interest @ 19% per annum from 11.07.2016, the date on which the sale deed was executed. It is not in dispute that till date the sale deed has not been registered on account of a dispute regarding the amount of stamp duty payable on the instrument of sale. 6. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has in Ext.P8 order concluded that the appellants and others have caused loss to the society. Such a finding was entered on the premise that the property purchased as per sale deed dated 11.07.2016 is of no use to the bank and that it is also not possible to realize the sale **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 5 consideration of 14,40,000/- by disposing of the property. Aggrieved₹ by Ext.P8 order, the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017 filed Ext.P9 appeal before the Government, invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Government under Section 83(1) of the Act. Six other members of the managing committee of the Bank including the four petitioners in W.P.(C)No.366 of 2018 jointly filed another appeal before the Government. The appeal filed by the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.40266 of 2017 was heard and dismissed by the Government by Ext.P10 order passed on 24.11.2017. W.P.(C).No.40266 of 2017 was thereupon filed in this court challenging Exts.P4, P8 and P10 and seeking the following reliefs. _“i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibits P4, P8 and P10 and quash the same._ _ii) Issue a writ declaring that the notice issued as per Ext.P4, the order issued as per Ext.P8 nor Ext.P10 does not contain findings attracting the ingredients for issuing an order under Section 68 of the KCS Act and therefore the said proceedings are bad in law and liable to be set aside._ _iii) Issue a writ declaring that the conclusions contained in Exts.P4, P8 and P10 does not attract Section 68(1) and therefore the proceedings in its entirety are vitiated and bad in law._ _iv) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing restoration of the committee elected on 24.12.2016 back to office as there is no ground to surcharge the members_ **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 6 _of the committee under Section 68 of the KCS Act.”_ The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017 also prayed for an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order and to restore the managing committee back to office. 7. It is relevant in this context to note that before the surcharge proceedings were initiated by Ext.P4 notice dated 05.05.2017, Ext.P2 order suspending the managing committee in exercise of the power conferred under Section 32 of the Act was passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 17.03.2017. By that order he appointed the Unit Inspector who had conducted the enquiry under Section 65 of the Act as Part time Administrator of the Bank. Later, after Ext.P8 order surcharging the members of the managing committee was passed, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued an order dated 27.06.2017 disqualifying 07 among the members of the managing committee of the Bank under Rule 44(1)(l) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for short. On the same day, he passed another order superseding the managing committee of the Bank under Section 33(1) of the Act on the ground that by virtue of the surcharge proceedings seven among the members of the managing committee have become disqualified to continue as members and thereby, the managing committee **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 7 consisting of 11 members has lost its quorum. By yet another order passed on 27.06.2017 he appointed the Unit Inspector as the Administrator of the Bank. As per the terms of the order appointing the Administrator he has to conduct elections to the managing committee of the Bank within six months as stipulated in sub section (3) of Section 33 of the Act. In view of the fact that the order appointing the Administrator was passed on 26.07.2017, the period of six months has come to an end. It is relevant in this context to note that the term of the Administrator of the Bank has since been extended for a further period of six months. 8. W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017 came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this court on 14.12.2017. On that day the learned single Judge admitted the writ petition and passed an interim order staying recovery pursuant to the order of surcharge and the appellate order, for a period of one month. The said interim order is under challenge in W.A.No.77 of 2018 on the ground that the order impugned is one which declines the prayer made by the appellants to stay the operation of the order of surcharge and unless the operation of the order of surcharge is stayed, the appellants will be disqualified from being members of the managing committee of the Bank, for life. 9. Pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Administrator of **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 8 the Bank on 01.12.2017, the State Co-operative Election Commission decided to hold elections to elect a new managing committee. Thereupon, an election notification dated 14.12.2017 was issued by the State Co-operative Election Commission proposing to hold the elections to the managing committee of the Bank on 04.02.2018. The appellants in W.A.No.77 of 2018 thereupon filed W.P.(C)No.40571 of 2017 in this court, challenging the election notification, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext.P6 therein, mainly on the ground that the decision taken by the Administrator of the Bank, to issue fresh identity cards to all the members of the Bank is not warranted. It was contended that the attempt to reconstruct the register in Form 6B is to confine the issue of identity cards to sympathisers of the party in power and thereby capture the administration of the Bank by illegal means. In the said writ petition, they prayed for an interim order staying the elections to the managing committee of the Bank scheduled to be held on 04.02.2018. 10. By the time, W.P.(C)No.40571 of 2017 came up for consideration of the interim relief prayed for, four other members of the managing committee of the Bank filed W.P.(C)No.366 of 2018 in this court, challenging the very same election notification, which was produced and marked as Ext.P7 therein. Their contention was that, **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 9 the appeal filed by them and two others challenging the order of surcharge is even now pending before the Government and before the appeal is disposed of, the elections ought not to be held. They contended that the Administrator has taken hasty steps to hold the elections even without waiting for the outcome of the appeal filed by them before the Government challenging the order of surcharge. In that writ petition they prayed for an interim order staying further proceedings pursuant to the election notification. The learned single Judge considered the said prayer as well and passed a common interim order on 16.01.2018 in W.P.(C)No.40571 of 2017 and W.P. (C)No.366 of 2018, declining to stay the elections. The said common order is under challenge in W.A.Nos.165 of 2018 and 179 of 2018 filed by the petitioners in the respective writ petitions. 11. We heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.77 of 2018 and 165 of 2018 and Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.179 of 2018, Sri.K.S. Mohammed Hashim, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the State Co-operative Election Commission, the Officers concerned with the conduct of the elections and Sri.T.B.Hood, learned counsel appearing for the Bank and its **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 10 Administrator. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The operation of the order of surcharge was stayed by a Division Bench of this court by interim order passed on 17.01.2018 in W.A.No.77 of 2018. Consequently in W.A.No.165 of 2018 an interim order was passed on 17.01.2018 to the effect that the nominations if any submitted by the appellants in W.A.No.165 of 2018 shall not be rejected on the ground that they are disqualified on account of the order surcharging them, if their nominations are otherwise in order. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said interim order, the nominations submitted by the appellants in W.A.Nos.77 of 2018 and 165 of 2018 (who are one and the same) were accepted, but the nominations submitted by the four appellants in W.A.No.179 of 2018 were rejected on the ground that in view of the order of surcharge, they are disqualified. 12. Learned counsel on both sides addressed elaborate arguments touching upon the validity of the order of surcharge and the decision taken by the Administrator of the Bank to hold the elections to the managing committee of the Bank even before the disposal of W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017. It is not in dispute that in the ordinary course, the term of the managing committee elected on 24.12.2016 would have come to an end only on 23.12.2021. An **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 11 Administrator was appointed to manage the affairs of the Bank only because of the order of surcharge passed by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, on 03.06.2017, surcharging 10 members of the managing committee of the Bank elected on 24.12.2016, under Section 68 of the Act and the consequential order passed by him on 27.06.2017 disqualifying 07 members of the managing committee of the Bank under Rule 44(1)(l) of the Rules. The order of surcharge is on record as Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017. But for the order of surcharge and the consequential order disqualifying 07 members of the managing committee, the appointment of an Administrator would not have been made. The order of surcharge was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants in W.A. No.77 of 2018 before the Government. It is now under challenge in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017. Though six others who were disqualified, namely the four appellants in W.A. No.179 of 2018 and two others had filed an appeal before the Government, the said appeal has not so far been disposed of. 13. The question whether fresh elections are required to be held, will in our opinion depend on the outcome of W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017, wherein the order of surcharge is under challenge. To a certain extent, it would also depend upon the orders to be passed by the Government in the appeal filed by the four appellants in **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 12 W.A.No.179 of 2018 and two others. The appellants therein have filed W.P.(C)No.366 of 2018 questioning the decision to hold elections on the ground that if the elections are now held, the appeal filed by them would become infructuous. The right of appeal being a statutory remedy and not a common law remedy, the appellate remedy cannot in our opinion be rendered illusory and meaningless by holding the elections even before the challenge to order of surcharge is finally disposed of by the Government in the appeal filed by the four appellants in W.A.No.179 of 2018 and two others. In any view of the matter as this court is seized of the dispute arising out of the order of surcharge in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017 filed by two members of the managing committee of the Bank who have exhausted the appellate remedy available to them, we are of the opinion that the Administrator ought to have awaited the outcome of W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017, before deciding to hold the elections. 14. Though it was contended before us that the elections will be subject to the outcome of the said writ petition, we are of the opinion that if the elections are held and third party rights are allowed to intervene, it will lead to further disputes as to whether the elections thus held can be subject to the decision in a writ petition arising from an order of surcharge. Such a dispute can be raised by members of **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 13 the Bank and also by persons elected in the elections scheduled to be held on 04.02.2018. As stated earlier, the term of the managing committee elected on 24.12.2016 would have in the ordinary course come to an end only on 23.12.2021. An Administrator was appointed only on 27.06.2017. The initial term of appointment has expired. The term has been extended by a further period of six months and the extended term of the Administrator will come to an end only on 26.06.2018. The appellants do not challenge the order appointing the Administrator. They cannot also successfully challenge the order appointing the Administrator for the reason that it is an account of surcharge proceedings which resulted in their disqualification that the appointment of an Administrator became necessary. In such circumstances, as the order of surcharge is the only reason which lead to the appointment of an Administrator, we are of the opinion that until this court pronounces upon the validity of the order of surcharge in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017, fresh elections to the managing committee of the Bank should not be held. Otherwise, in the event of this court interfering with the order of surcharge in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017, it will lead to a situation where a question as to whether the managing committee elected on 24.12.2016 is entitled to be put back in office will necessarily arise for consideration. At that stage, this **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 14 court will have to grapple with the issue as to whether the elections held on 04.02.2018 (assuming such elections are held) will prevail over the elections held on 24.12.2016. We also take note of the fact that the process of issuing identity cards to the members pursuant to Exts.P5 and P5(a) produced in W.P.(C)No.40571 of 2017 is yet to be completed. 15. It is also relevant in this context to note that if elections are held pending these writ petitions, the Bank will have to incur expenditure for printing the ballot papers and for making other arrangements. In the event of the Bank recouping the money paid towards sale consideration, no question of surcharging the members of the managing committee of the Bank would arise. Having regard to the reasons stated in the detailed interim order passed by this court on 17.01.2018 in W.A.No.77 of 2018 staying the operation and implementation of the order of surcharge, we are _prima facie_ of the opinion that the learned single Judge erred in declining to grant an interim order staying the elections. The Apex Court has in _**Assistant**_ _**Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Limited and others** (1985) 1 SCC 260_ ) held as follows: _“Where gross violations of the law and injustice are perpetuated or are about to be perpetuated, it is the bounden_ 15 ## **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** _duty of the court to intervene and give appropriate interim relief. In cases where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizens's faith in the impartiality of public administration, a court may well be justified in granting interim relief against public authority. But since the law presumes that public authorities function properly and bona fide with due regard to the public interest, a court must be circumspect in granting interim orders of far-reaching dimensions or orders causing administrative burdensome inconvenience or orders preventing collection of public revenue for no better reason than that the parties have come to the court alleging prejudice, inconvenience or harm and that a prima facie case has been shown. There can be and there are no hard and fast rules. But prudence, discretion and circumspection are called for. There are several other vital considerations apart from the existence of a prima facie case. There is the question of balance of convenience. There is the question of irreparable injury. There is the question of the public interest. There are many such factors worthy of consideration. We often wonder why in the case indirect taxation where the burden has already been passed on to the consumer, any interim relief should at all be given to the manufacturer, dealer and the like”._ The Apex Court has in _**Benara Valves Ltd. and Others v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Another** [(2006) 13 SCC 347]_ reiterated the same view. 16. In the instant case, as noticed by this court in the order passed on 17.01.2018 staying the operation of the order of surcharge, **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 16 the question whether the order of surcharge was validly passed or not is yet to be decided by this court. The need to hold fresh elections will arise only in the event of this court upholding the order of surcharge. The Administrator appears to have in our opinion acted with undue haste even after noticing that the register in Form 6B is not in order and the challenge to the order surcharging the members of the managing committee is pending in this court, in proceeding to hold elections to the managing committee. As noticed by us earlier, the document of sale is yet to be registered. The seller has sent a letter to the Secretary of the Bank expressing his willingness to pay back the sale consideration. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017 have, in Exts.P6 and P7 statements stated that a substantial portion of the sale consideration is still lying in deposit in the account maintained by K.N.Anjaneyan Namboothiri in the Bank. Though learned counsel appearing for the Administrator disputes the correctness of the said statement, that aspect of the matter has not been adverted to in the order of surcharge. In any case, that is a matter which this court will have to go into at the time of final hearing. As noticed in paragraph 15 of the interim order passed by this court in W.A.No.77 of 2018, it cannot be said with certainty that the bank has suffered a loss unless K.N.Anjaneyan Namboothiri refuses to hounour his commitment to **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 17 pay back the sale consideration. As noticed in the said interim order, the Bank will acquire title to the property only if and when a sale deed is registered. That contingency has not so far happened. No one has made an effort to ascertain whether the offer made by K.N.Anjaneyan Namboothiri to pay back the sale consideration is a mere eye wash or whether his offer is _bonafide_ . There is also no finding in Exts.P8 or P10 orders that the statement in Exts.P6 and P7 produced in W.P. (C)No.40266 of 2017 regarding the offer made by K.N.Anjaneyan Namboothiri to pay back the sale consideration is a mere eye wash or that it lacks _bona fides_ . Such being the situation, we deem it appropriate to stay the elections to the managing committee of the Bank. We accordingly dispose of these writ appeals by staying the elections to the managing committee of Sreekandamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.974 until W.P.(C)Nos.40266 of 2017, 40571 of 2017 and W.P.(C)No.366 of 2018 are finally heard and disposed of by the learned single Judge. Either of the parties may move the learned single Judge to have the writ petitions expeditiously disposed of, after completion of pleadings. The interim order passed in W.A.No.77 of 2018 staying the operation of the order of surcharge shall also continue to be in force until W.P.(C)No.40266 of 2017 and **W.A.Nos.77 of 2018, 165 of 2018 & 179 of 2018** 18 W.P.(C)No.366 of 2018 are heard and disposed of. We make it clear that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the Government from disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.366 of 2018 and two others, challenging the order of surcharge. We also deem it appropriate to clarify that the observations made in this judgment and in the interim order passed on 17.01.2018 will not stand in the way of the learned single Judge from independently considering the issues raised in the three writ petitions and that the order passed by us staying the elections is one intended to maintain the _status quo_ regarding the administration of the Bank until the issue regarding the validity of the order of surcharge is finally decided by this court. _Sd/-_ ## **(P.N.Ravindran, Judge)** _Sd/-_ ## **(R. Narayana Pisharadi, Judge)** _//True Copy//_ ss _P.A. To Judge_