Jalaja Gopan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kollam and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 27TH BHADRA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 2558 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **JALAJA GOPAN AGED 39 YEARS SWETHA BHAVAN, PUNUKANNUR, ALUMMOODU P.O., KOLLAM-691577,PRESIDENT, PUNUKANNUR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2722,PUNUKANNUR, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.ANIL SMT.T.N.SREEKALA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KOLLAM-691001.** **2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOLLAM-691001.** **3 THE THRIKKOVILVATTOM PANCHAYAT SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.Q.78 MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM-691577, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** ## **ADDL.4 G.PRASANNAN** **S/O K.GOPALAN, AGED 63 YEARS, PALOTT VEEDU, PERUMPUZHA THAZHAM, NEDUMPANA P O, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.8.3.18 IN I.A.2584/18)** **BY ADVS. R4 BY SIJU KAMALASANAN** ## **SRI.S.ABHILASH SRI.K.SIJU OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI MOHAMMED HASHIM, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.(C)No.2558 of 2018** ## **:-2-:** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is a Member of the Managing Committee and also the elected President of Punukannur Service Co-operative Bank, a Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Service Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules made thereunder, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 order dated 16.1.2018 issued by the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and seeking a declaration that Ext.P10 order is not one issued in compliance of the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment dated 28.11.2017 in W.P. (C)No.37650/2017 and the 3[rd] respondent has acted in total violation of the said judgment. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs. ## **W.P.(C)No.2558 of 2018** ## **:-3-:** 2. On 24.1.2018 when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions as to whether the petitioner was heard in person subsequent to Ext.P9 judgment and also whether the documents as sought for in Ext.P8 request were furnished to the petitioner before taking a decision in Ext.P10 order as to her disqualification. 3. On 25.1.2018 when this writ petition came up for further consideration, it was submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions from the office of the 1[st] respondent that, subsequent to Ext.P9 judgment of this Court, no personal hearing was conducted with notice to the petitioner, before issuing Ext.P10 order. After recording the said submission, this Court granted an interim stay of Ext.P10 order of the 1[st] ## **W.P.(C)No.2558 of 2018** **:-4-:** respondent Joint Registrar, for a period of three weeks, thereby permitting the petitioner to continue as a member and President in the Managing Committee of the 3[rd] respondent Bank. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force. 4. On 16.2.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the petitioner was directed to file an application to implead Punukannur Service Co-operative Bank as additional respondent. Accordingly the petitioner filed I.A.No.2584/2018, which was allowed by the order dated 8.3.2018. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the additional 4[th] respondent has entered appearance through counsel. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent opposing the relief sought for in this writ petition, which was ## **W.P.(C)No.2558 of 2018** ## **:-5-:** followed by an additional counter affidavit dated 18.7.2018. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the additional 4[th] respondent. 7. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P10 order passed by the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar, on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. The grievance raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.37650/2017 was that, despite Ext.P8 request dated 16.l1.2017, she was not furnished with necessary documents in order to substantiate her contention. The said issue was considered by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, whereby W.P. ## **W.P.(C)No.2558 of 2018** ## **:-6-:** (C)No.37650/2017 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by directing the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar to take decision on the proceedings constituted as per Ext.P6, taking into account the objections filed, Ext.P8 requisition made and also the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the judgment, which is mentioned in paragraph 5, and attain finality within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of Ext.P9 judgment in W.P. (C)No.37650 of 2017 read thus; “4. The subject issue revolves round Ext.P6 notice issued by the 1[st] respondent under rule 44(c)(i) of Rules, 1969. From the tenor and terms of the notice, it is evident that, same is only a show cause notice, to which petitioner is entitled as of right to file objections/explanation and participate in the proceedings so as to enable the statutory authority to arrive at a conclusive finding. Any how in response to Ext.P6, petitioner has ## **W.P.(C)No.2558 of 2018** ## **:-7-:** submitted Ext.P7 explanation and also submitted Ext.P8 seeking issuance of all the documents that are relied on by the 1[st] respondent. Which thus means, petitioner has already participated in the proceedings pertaining to Ext.P6 show cause notice. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination, it can be said that, there is any culmination of proceedings enabling this court to interfere at this stage of the proceedings since from the fact, I do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or other legal infirmities enabling this court to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has invited my attention to the judgments of this court in ## **Thommen Itticheriyanthu v. State of Kerala** [1978 KLT 887], **Madanmohanan Kartha v. Elamkulam Service Cooperative Bank** [1983 KLT 640] and **Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala** [1988(1) KLT 190]. According to the petitioner, the judgment rendered in **Abdul Rasheed** supra wherein the very same issue was considered by this court. 6. Any how these are all matters to be agitated before the 1st respondent by the petitioner. ## **W.P.(C)No.2558 of 2018** ## **:-8-:** Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent to take a decision on the proceedings constituted as per Ext.P6 taking into account the objection filed, Ext.P8 requisition made and also the proposition of law laid down by this court in the aforequoted judgments and attain finality within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that, if there are no other legal circumstances standing in the way, the copies of documents relied upon by the 1st respondent shall be provided to the petitioner. The interim order passed by this court on 27.11.2017 in respect of Ext.P6 show cause notice will continue to be in force till such time the directives are complied with. In case any adverse orders is passed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner, same shall be kept in abeyance from the date of communication of the same to the petitioner, enabling the petitioner to work out the remedies.” 9. It is pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P9 judgment that the 1[st] respondent Joint ## **W.P.(C)No.2558 of 2018** ## **:-9-:** Registrar has issued Ext.P10 order, whereby the petitioner stands disqualified under the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 44 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, on the ground that she is having disqualification as provided under subclause (i) of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 44. 10. The fact that, after Ext.P9 judgment, the petitioner was not heard by the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar, before taking a decision vide Ext.P10 order is not in dispute. After Ext.P9 judgment, the petitioner was furnished with documents, as sought for in Ext.P8. However, she was not given an opportunity to substantiate her contentions with reference to the said documents. When the additional documents sought for in Ext.P8 were furnished pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment of this Court, the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar ought to ## **W.P.(C)No.2558 of 2018** ## **:-10-:** have conducted a personal hearing, so as to enable the petitioner to substantiate her contentions with reference to the said materials. In such circumstances, conclusion is irresistible that, Ext.P10 order is one issued by the 1[st] respondent in clear violation of principles of natural justice. On that sole ground, the said order is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P10 order dated 16.1.2018 issued by the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar and by directing the said respondent to reconsider the matter, with notice to the petitioner and also to respondents 3 and 4. 12. If the 1[st] respondent is placing reliance on any complaint made by the additional 4[th] respondent or any materials produced by the said respondent, it is for the 1[st] respondent to furnish a copy of ## **W.P.(C)No.2558 of 2018** ## **:-11-:** the same to the petitioner and give her a reasonable opportunity to substantiate her contentions with reference to the said materials. 13. The entire process in this regard shall be undertaken and completed **,** as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the rival contentions and that, Ext.P10 order is set aside only for the reason stated hereinbefore, i.e., violation of the principles of natural justice. All pending interlocutory applications are closed. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** ami/24.9.18 ## **W.P.(C)No.2558 of 2018** ## **:-12-:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25-102017 IN RESPECT OF THE DUES OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACCOUNT DETAILS. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25-102017 IN RESPECT OF THE DUES OF SMT.JAYALAKSHMI.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT DETAILS. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 1011-2017.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3-11-2017. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 3.11.2017.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR DATED 16.11.2017. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)37650 OF 2017 DATED 28-11-2017. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.R.P./575/17 DATED 16-01-2018.** **RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R3(a)** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.11.2017 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RECEIPT OF DOCUMENT ON 23.11.2018.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **ami/ P.A.TO JUDGE**