K.P. Radhakrishnan, Sudhakaran Nambeesan, V.K. Ramesh Babu and Ibrahim Man Nankandi v. State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Cooperation (PS) Department; The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Kozhikode; The Naduvannur Regional Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.F.1269, Naduvannur, Kozhikode; Kadakampally Surendran, Minister for Co-operation, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 4712 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER(S)** ## **1 K.P.RADHAKRISHNAN,** **PRESIDENT,NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1269,NADUVANUR.P.O,KOZHIKODE.** ## **2 SUDHAKARAN NAMBEESAN,** - **COMMITTEE MEMBER,NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1269,NADUVANUR.P.O,KOZHIKODE.** ## **3 V.K.RAMESH BABU,** **COMMITTEE MEMBER,NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1269,NADUVANUR.P.O,KOZHIKODE.** ## **4 IBRAHIM MAN NANKANDI,** **COMMITTEE MEMBER,NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1269,NADUVANUR.P.O,KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADV.SRI.P.P.JACOB** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,CO-OPERATION(PS)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), PUTHIYARA,KOZHIKODE-673004.** **3. THE NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F 1269, NADUVANNUR.P.O,KOZHIKODE,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-673001.** **4. MR.KADAKAMPALLY SURENDRAN, THE MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATION,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-02-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **PBS** ## **WP(C).No. 4712 of 2018 (L)** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 16.7.2010 EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 8.9.2010 EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30.4.2016 EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 22.11.2016 EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY STATE INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 15.11.2016 EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED IN W.P.(C)38343/2016 DATED 9.12.2016 EXT.P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDING/ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 5.12.2016 EXT.P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.38346/2016 DATED 27.6.2017 EXT.P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2017.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **PA TO JUDGE** **PBS 6/3/2018** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.4712 of 2018 -----------------------------------------------** Dated this the 28[th] day of February, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners, who are the President and members of the managing committee of Naduvannur Regional Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.F 1269, the 3[rd] respondent Bank, are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order of surcharge dated 16.7.2010 of the 2[nd] respondent under Section 68(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and also Ext.P9 order dated 31.12.2017 of the 1[st] respondent in Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioners and others under Section 83(1)(e) of the said Act. 2. On 12.2.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. Thereafter, on 15.2.2018, time was granted to file statement/counter affidavit. A statement dated 27.2.2018 has been filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also ## W.P.(C)No.4712 of 2018 :-2-: the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted service of notice on the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents are dispensed with. 4. The proceedings initiated against the members of the managing committee of the 4[th] respondent Bank under Section 68 of the Act culminated in Ext.P1 order of surcharge of the 2[nd] respondent under Section 68(2) of the Act. The said order was under challenge in Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioners and others under Section 83(1)(e) of the Act. Ext.P2 appeal ended in dismissal by Ext.P9 order dated 31.12.2017 of the 1[st] respondent. Though the 1[st] respondent has passed Ext.P9 order running to five pages it contains only the narration of the submission made by the petitioners in Ext.P2 appeal. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of Ext.P9 order are verbatim reproduction of paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of Ext.P2 memorandum of appeal. The reasoning of the 1[st] respondent, as contained in paragraph 11 of Ext.P9 order reads thus; “11) The case has been examined in detail with regard to the Appeal Petition, factual report and the points raised during W.P.(C)No.4712 of 2018 :-3-: hearing. The Joint Registrar (General), Kozhikode issued the surcharge order against the former administrative committee members as per Section 68(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969 on utmost realisation that the society met with loss and decrease of assets due to the illegal and irresponsible deeds of the former administrative committee members against the interest of the bank. Hence the appeal petition put forth by the former President and committee members of the Naduvannur Regional Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.F.1269 is hereby rejected and the surcharge order of Joint Registrar (General), Kozhikode read as second paper above is upheld.” 5. In **Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union [(1974) 3 SCC 318]** the Apex Court, while considering the challenge made against an award under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held that the giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfitness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons W.P.(C)No.4712 of 2018 :-4-: which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi judicial authorities to the Apex Court by special leave granted under Art.136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. 6. In **Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers [(2010) 4 SCC 785]** the Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely ## W.P.(C)No.4712 of 2018 :-5-: affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. 7. An appellate order passed by the 1[st] respondent State under section 83 of the Act can be subjected to the original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An order without reasons virtually makes the jurisdiction of this Court nugatory and ineffective, inasmuch as, such an order which does not disclose any reasons will be of little assistance to this Court, while analysing the reasoning essential to such a decision. 8. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, Ext.P9 appellate order of the 1[st] respondent cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P9 order of the 1[st] respondent for the aforesaid reason W.P.(C)No.4712 of 2018 :-6-: and the said respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 appeal with notice to the petitioners and respondents in that appeal, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. The 1[st] respondent shall pass a reasoned order meeting the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months 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 or the allegations or the rival contentions raised by both sides. All factual and legal contentions are left open. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** ami/28.2.18 //True copy// P.A.to Judge