M.S. Anil v. Joint Registrar (General), Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY,THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 19TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **M.S. ANIL, AGED 52 YEARS, SANKARA VILASAM, MARAYAMUTTOM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESIDENT OF THE SUPERCEEDED MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE MARAYAMUTTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 984, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI SRI.O.A.ANJU SMT.P.S.BHAGYA SURABHI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR(GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001. 2 THE MARAYAMUTTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.984,MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA -695124 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3 THE PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), NEYYATTINKARA, THE MARAYAMUTTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.984, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA-695124.** **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -2- *** 4 V.JAYAN, S/O VARGHESE B, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT BADHANEES, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., PERUMKADAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695124.** - **(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01/10/2018 IN IA.01/2018)** - **5 THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **(ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/10/2018 IN IA.02/2018)** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM,SC,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN SRI.N.RAGHURAJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -3- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who was the elected President of the 2[nd] respondent Bank, which is a Society registered under the Kerala 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.P8 order dated 22.09.2018 of the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar, whereby the Managing Committee of the 2[nd] respondent Society is superseded, invoking the powers under Section 32 of the Act, and appointing the 3[rd] respondent as Part-time Administrator. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Ext.P8 order is highly illegal, violative of the mandatory provisions stipulated in Section 32, vitiated by extraneous consideration, violative of the mandatory direction in Ext.P7, hence legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to reinstate the Managing Committee of the 2[nd] respondent Society with the petitioner as the President back to office forthwith. **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -4- 2. On 26.09.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1[st] respondent. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 2 and 3, returnable by 01.10.2018. 3. On 01.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, a member of the 2[nd] respondent Society was impleaded as additional 4[th] respondent by the order in I.A.No.1 of 2018. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a counter affidavit of the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar shall be placed on record by 08.10.2018. 4. On 15.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank, represented by its General Manager was impleaded as additional 5[th] respondent by the order in I.A.No.2 of 2018. On 16.10.2018, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions as to the date of communication of Ext.P8 order to the State Co-operative Election Commission and also to the 3[rd] respondent **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -5- Assistant Registrar, and also the mode of communication. 5. On 26.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court has directed the learned Standing Counsel for the additional 5[th] respondent to ensure that the files relating to Ext.R1(a) communication of the said respondent, which is the Financing Bank, is made available for the perusal of this Court. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to ensure that the files relating to Ext.R1(b) communication of the Circle Cooperative Union is also made available for the perusal of this Court. 6. Counter affidavits have been filed by the 1[st] respondent; the additional 4[th] respondent; and also the additional 5[th] respondent. 7. Though the learned counsel on both sides have raised various contentions, after perusal of the files relating to Ext.R1(a) communication dated 14.06.2018 of the 5[th] respondent Financing Bank and Ext.R2(b) communication dated 18.09.2018 of the Circle Co-operative Union, the issue **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -6- is confined as to whether Ext.P8 order of supersession is one issued in compliance of the statutory requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. 8. Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act deals with supersession of a committee. As per subsection (1) of Section 32, if the Registrar, after an enquiry by himself or through his subordinates or on a report of the financing bank, or the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau of the Government or the Vigilance Officer or otherwise, is satisfied that the committee of any society, persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by the Act or the rules or bye-laws or does anything which is prejudicial to the interests of the society; or wilfully disobeys or fails to comply with any lawful order or direction issued under the Act or the rules; or makes any payment contrary to the Act or the rules or the bye-laws or causes any loss or damage to the assets of the society, by breach of trust or wilfull negligence; or misappropriates or destroys or tampers with the records or **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -7- causes the destruction of records to cover up any misconduct or malpractice, the Registrar may, after giving the committee an opportunity to state its objections, if any, by order in writing, remove the committee and appoint in its place, one administrator or an administrative committee consisting of not more than three individuals, one among them as convener, who need not be members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding six months. The 3[rd] proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 32 provides that, the Board of Co-operative Society shall not be superseded or kept under suspension where there is no Government share holding or loan or financial assistance or any guarantee by the Government or any Board or Institutions constituted by the Government. Going by sub-section (2) of Section 32, the Registrar shall consult - the financing bank and Circle Co operative Union or State - Co operative Union, as the case may be, before passing an - order under sub section (1). 9. Sub-section (3) of Section 32, which begins with a **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -8- _non obstante_ clause provides that, notwithstanding anything - - contained in sub section (1) or sub section (2) it shall not be necessary to give an opportunity to the committee to state its objections and to consult the Unions and financing banks, in cases where the Registrar is of the opinion that it is not reasonably practicable to do so, subject however to the condition that in such cases the period of supersession shall generally be for six months and in case a new committee cannot be constituted or enter upon office in accordance with the bye-laws of the society within the period of supersession, the period may be extended for a further period not exceeding six months in the case of a cooperative society only after consulting the Circle Cooperative Union concerned; and in the case of an Apex Society or a Central Society only after consulting the State Co-operative Union. 10. In **Rajeevan v. Sukumaran (2013 (3) KLT 253)** , a Division Bench of this Court held that, supersession of an elected Managing Committee or Board is an exception **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -9- and can be resorted to only in very exceptional circumstances and normally, an elected body shall be allowed to complete the term, for which it is elected. The words “it is not reasonably practicable to do so” occurring in sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act qualifies the opportunity to the committee to state its objections. In spite of serious allegations, only in an instance where it is not practically possible to issue notice to the Managing Committee that serious attempt can be made to supersede an elected body. It is not the allegations in the report that matters in order to avoid a notice but the practical difficulty in issuing notice to the members of the Committee is what matters. The Division Bench held further that, consultation with the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union is mandatory and vital in the context of action to supersede an elected Managing Committee of a society. Therefore, when dispensing with the opportunity to the committee to state its objections results in non-consultation with the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union, that also is a **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -10- reason to hold that dispensing with the opportunity to the committee to state its objections cannot be lightly resorted to. 11. In **Rajeevan's case** , the Managing Committee of ADAT Farmer's Service Co-operative Society was superseded under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act, without following the procedure under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 32, on the allegation that the Managing Committee had waived crores of rupees of interest due to the society from mill owners, who had purchased paddy from the society, the price of which was due to the society from the mill owners. Although the mill owners had entered into an agreement with the society for paying the amounts due from them to the society and post dated cheques were issued for the same, those post dated cheques were not presented in time. Further, the committee granted arecanut key loans to certain parties without obtaining adequate security, as a result of which, the society suffered very huge loss running into crores of rupees. Before the Division **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -11- Bench, it was contended by the members of the Managing Committee that, the statutory right to make a representation against the proposed action under Section 32 of the Act cannot be lightly dispensed with, merely on the allegation that the Managing Committee members are likely to mismanage the society or tamper with the records. It was contended further that, insofar as the documents have already been perused and the allegations have already been detailed in the order of supersession, there is no chance of tampering with the records at all. 12. In **Rajeevan's case** , the Division Bench fully agreed with the view of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 23 of the judgment that despite the fact that there are serious allegations, only in an instance where it is not practically possible to issue notice to the Managing Committee on account of various factors like failure of the Managing Committee in not accepting notice, the members of the Managing Committee not available to receive notice, that an immediate seizure of all the books of the bank is **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -12- required for verification, etc. that such serious attempt can be made to supersede an elected body. Paragraph 23 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge reads thus; "23. What is relevant is whether it is practically not possible to issue notice and give an opportunity to explain. It is not the gravity of allegations or irregularities noticed during inspection that matters, to avoid issuance of the notice. Notice contemplated under Section 32(1) can be dispensed only if it is not practical to issue notice to the managing committee and not based on the allegations in the report. Despite the fact that there are serious allegations, only in an instance where it is not practically possible to issue notice to the managing committee on account of various factors like failure of the managing committee in not accepting notice, the members of the managing committee not available to receive notice that an immediate seizure of all the books of the bank is required for verification, etc. that such serious attempt can be made to supersede an elected body. The fact that the statute itself had given an opportunity in the form Section 32(1) to the managing committee to explain the irregularities or the mistakes or the defaults which are brought to their notice during inspection by itself indicates that it is not the allegations in the report that matters in **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -13- order to avoid a notice but the practical difficulty in issuing notice to the members of the committee." 13. In **State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach (2013** **(2) KLT 733) (SC)** , the Apex Court, in the context of Section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 held that, the Registrar/Joint Registrar, while exercising powers of supersession has to form an opinion and that opinion must be based on some objective criteria, which has nexus with the final decision. A statutory authority shall not act with pre-conceived notion and shall not speak his masters' voice, because the formation of opinion must be his own, not somebody else in power, to achieve some ulterior motive. There may be situations where the Registrar/Joint Registrar are expected to act in the best interest of the society and its members, but in such situations, they have to act bona fide and within the four corners of the Statute. In the said case, the order of supersession was passed by the Joint Registrar after a period of two and a half years of the issuance of show cause notice and most of the charges levelled against the Board of **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -14- Directors were related to the period when the previous committee was in office and even the charges based on the Audit Report dated 25.9.2008 were also rectified by the Board of Directors by addressing the primary societies. In paragraph 35 of the judgment, the Apex Court laid down the general directions in the matter of supersession of the elected committee, which read thus; - “35. Further, we are inclined to give the following general directions in view of the mushrooming of cases in various Courts challenging orders of supersession of elected Committees: - 1) Supersession of an elected managing Committee/ Board is an exception and be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances and normally elected body be allowed to complete the term for which it is elected. - 2) Elected Committee in office be not penalised for the short-comings or illegalities committed by the previous Committee, unless there is any deliberate inaction in rectifying the illegalities committed by the previous committees. - 3) - Elected Committee in Office be given sufficient time, say at least six months, to rectify the defects, if any, pointed out in the audit report with regard to incidents which originated when the **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -15- previous committee was in office. 4) 5) 6) 7) Registrar/Joint Registrar are legally obliged to comply with all the statutory formalities, including consultation with the Financing Banks/Controlling Banks etc. Only after getting their view, an opinion be formed as to whether an elected Committee be ousted or not. Registrar/Joint Registrar should always bear in mind the consequences of an order of supersession which has the effect of not only ousting the Board out of office, but also disqualify them for standing for election in the succeeding elections. Registrar/Joint Registrar therefore is duty bound to exercise his powers bona fide and not on the dictation or direction of those who are in power. Registrar/Joint Registrar shall not act under political pressure or influence and, if they do, be subjected to disciplinary proceedings and be also held personally liable for the cost of the legal proceedings. Public money not to be spent by the State Government or the Registrar for unnecessary litigation involving disputes between various factions in a co-operative society. Tax payers money is not expected to be spent for settling those disputes. If found necessary, the same be spent from the funds available with the concerned Bank.” **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -16- 14. In the instant case, Ext.P3 notice was one issued by the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar, invoking his powers under Section 32(1) of the Act, whereby the petitioner and also the 2[nd] respondent Society were asked to show cause why proceedings under Section 32 for supersession of the Managing Committee shall not be taken. In the said notice, it was made clear that explanation, if any, in writing shall be submitted before 3.00 pm on 20.06.2018 and if the petitioner requires a personal hearing, he should appear before the 1[st] respondent at 3.00 pm on that day, failing which the matter will be proceeded further on an assumption that the petitioner has no explanation to submit. Pursuant to Ext.P3 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 explanation dated 20.06.2018 before the 1[st] respondent. 15. Ext.P3 notice was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.19381 of 2018, wherein this Court has granted an order of status quo. The said writ petition was later disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 13.09.2018 with the following directions; **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -17- “i) The respondent Joint Registrar in W.P. (C)Nos.10128 and 19381 of 2018 shall pass orders pursuant to Ext.P9 notice dated 31.05.2018 issued under Section 32 of the Act, after considering the explanation offered by the 1[st] petitioner Society along with Ext.P16 covering letter dated 20.06.2018 in W.P. (C)No.19381 of 2018 and also the explanation, if any, offered by the 2[nd] petitioner Managing Committee within one week from the date of this judgment, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach [(2013) 7 SCC 25]** , with notice to the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.10128 and 19381 of 2018 and also the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24791 of 2018, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week thereafter. ii) The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioners without any delay.” 16. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P5 notice dated 17.09.2018 regarding the personal hearing scheduled on 19.09.2018. The petitioner along with the Secretary of the 2[nd] respondent Society appeared in person before the 1[st] respondent and submitted Ext.P6 reply dated 19.09.2018, along with a copy of Ext.P7 judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No.19381 of 2018. After the personal hearing, the 1[st] **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -18- respondent issued Ext.P8 order, whereby the Managing Committee of the 2[nd] respondent Society has been superseded and the 3[rd] respondent has been appointed as the Part-time Administrator. 17. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent, a copy of Ext.R1(a) communication dated 14.06.2018 of the Financing Bank is placed on record. The document marked as Ext.R1(b) is a copy of the communication dated 18.09.2018 of the Circle Co-operative Union. A perusal of Ext.R1(a) would show that the view of the Financing Bank is one expressed prior to the submission of Ext.P4 explanation by the petitioner to Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 32 of the Act. Though, Ext.R1(b) communication dated 18.09.2018 of the Circle Co-operative Union is one after the submission of Ext.P4 explanation by the petitioner, it is not discernible from Ext.R1(b) as to whether the view expressed by the Circle Co-operative Union is one after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner in Ext.P4. **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -19- 18. The very concept of consultation in a proceeding under Section 32 of the Act is to ascertain the views of the Financing Bank and also the Circle Co-operative Union, on the allegations levelled against the Managing Committee of the Society, with reference to the explanation offered by the Society. Such process of consultation will be effective only if the views of the Financial Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union are forwarded, after taking into consideration the allegations in the show-cause notice, the explanation offered by the Managing Committee in their reply, etc. When the view of the Financing Bank in Ext.R1(a) is one expressed prior to Ext.P4 explanation to Ext.P3 show-cause notice, and it is not discernible from Ext.R1(b) views of the Circle Cooperative Union as to whether the explanation offered by the Managing Committee was enclosed along with a copy of Ext.P3 show-cause notice, it cannot be said that, before issuing Ext.P8 order of supersession, there was a proper consultation, as per the mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 32. As already noticed that, consultation of the Financing Bank **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -20- and the Circle Co-operative Union can be dispensed with in cases where the Registrar is of the opinion that it is not reasonably practicable to do so. In the instant case, the 1[st] respondent has not chosen to invoke the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 31 of the Act, while superceding the Managing Committee of the 2[nd] respondent Society, though the allegations levelled against the Committee are serious in nature. Instead, the 1[st] respondent has chosen to consult the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union, before taking further course in the matter. In such circumstances, unless there is a proper and effective consultation with the Financing Bank and the Circle Cooperative Union, it cannot be said that the mandate of subsection (2) of Section 32 of the Act has been complied with, while issuing Ext.P8 order of supersession. 19. The learned Senior Government Pleader, after referring to the law laid down by this Court in **K.Gopalakrishnan and others v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies [W.P.(C) No.31727 of 2015 dated** **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -21- **08.12.2015]** would contend that, even if there is any procedural violations while issuing Ext.P8 order of supersession, any such procedural violations are curable, and in case that order is liable to be set aside on procedural lapses, the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar may be directed to redo that exercise after complying with the statutory mandate. In support of that contention, the learned Senior Government Pleader would place reliance on paragraphs 31 to 38 of the said judgment. 20. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that there is procedural irregularities in Ext.P8 order of supersession, since the views of the Financing Bank as per Ext.R1(a) is one expressed prior to the submission of Ext.P4 explanation, and it is not discernible from Ext.R1(b) as to whether before expressing such a view, the Circle Co-operative Union has been furnished with a copy of Ext.P4 explanation offered by the petitioner. 21. In **Sahadevan v. Padmanabhan [2004 (1)** **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -22- **KLT** 192], wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that a mere forwarding of show-cause notice to the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union is not sufficient. The explanation given on behalf of the Committee and the tentative finding of the Joint Registrar has also to be forwarded. Such a view has been reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala v. Urukunnu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd [2013 (2) KLT 74]** . 22. In **Gireesh Kumar v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ernakulam and others [2013(3)** **KLT SN 105]** , this Court held that the order of supersession under sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, in addition to removal of the Committee and appointing an Administrator, has another consequence of disqualification of Committee members from contesting the election, in view of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act. Therefore, though the Committee members have a right to resign, if the **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -23- resignation is after the notice commencing proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act, i.e., after issuing notice of inquiry, the proceedings will have to come to a logical end. The discretion is purely with the Registrar and of course, nothing prevents the Registrar from taking action under sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act as well, on account of embloc resignation of the Committee members. 23. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by this Court in **Gireesh Kumar's case (supra)** , in view of the consequence of disqualification of the Committee members from contesting in the election, as per clause (e) of subsection (1) of Section 32 of the Act, the proceedings under Section 32 of the Act initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 notice will have to come to a logical end, despite the interference made by this Court on Ext.P8 order of supersession, on account of procedural irregularities. 24. On 26.10.2018, the term of the Managing Committee expired and the 3[rd] respondent Administrator, **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -24- who has taken charge on the strength of Ext.P8 order, is managing the affairs of the Society. Therefore, _status quo_ as on date as to the management of the 2[nd] respondent Society has to continue till a new Managing Committee is elected. 25. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P8 order dated 22.09.2018 of the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar for the reason stated hereinbefore; however, giving liberty to the said respondent to proceed further with Ext.P3 show-cause notice issued under Section 32 of the Act, based on Ext.P4 explanation and Ext.P6 reply offered by the petitioner. The 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar shall forward a copy of Ext.P4 explanation and Ext.P6 reply offered by the petitioner to Ext.P3 show-cause notice, along with a tentative decision, to the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union, in order to ascertain their views, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. Thereafter 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar shall conduct a personal hearing, with notice to the petitioner, the members of the Managing Committee, who **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -25- were in office, as on the date of Ext.P3 show-cause notice, and thereafter, take a decision as to the further course to be taken in the matter. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Part-time Administrator appointed in terms of Ext.P8 order shall continue to manage the affairs of the 2[nd] respondent Society, till the newly elected Managing Committee assumes office. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -26- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CRP(1)8593/17 DATED 28.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.ANO.6982/2018 IN WP(C)NO.10128/2018 DATED 11.4.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CRP(1)8593/2017 DATED 31.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 20.6.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CRP(1)8593/2017 DATED 17.9.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.9.2018 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.19381/2018 DATED 13.9.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. CRP(1)8593/17 DATED 22.9.2018 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.E (1)4478/2018/SCEC DATED 22.9.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.M.922/2018 DATED 3.9.2018 FROM THE JOINT DIRECTOR (AUDIT).** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.9.2018.** **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -27- ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B AND L/2023/2018-19 DATED 14/06/2018 OF THE FINANCING BANK.** - **EXHIBIT R1(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CCU 1/18 DATED 18/09/2018 OF THE CIRCLE CO-OPERATIVE UNION.** **EXHIBIT R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK ON 17/05/2018.** - **EXHIBIT R3(A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17/10/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 PERTAINING TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY.** - **EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE QUICK VERIFICATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CMP NO. 732/2016.** - **EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP (1)4426/17 DATED 11/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/07/2018 IN WPC NO.8752/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)8643/17/K.DIS DATED 16/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/07/2018 IN WPC NO.9488/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -28- - **EXHIBIT R4(G)** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.S. 3237/16/K.DIS DATED 11/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/07/2018 IN WPC NO.8781/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)3194/16/K.DIS DATED 14/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)2433/17/K.DIS. DATED 14/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(K) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/07/2018 IN WPC NO.11532/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(L) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)1183/17/K.DIS. DATED 27/11/2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(M) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/07/2018 IN WPC NO.9776/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(N) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)1185/17/K.DIS. DATED 11/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(O) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/07/2018 IN WPC NO.9444/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT R4(P) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)8593/2017 DATED 28/11/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **WP(C).No. 31294 of 2018** -29- **EXHIBIT R4(Q)** **EXHIBIT R4(R)** **EXHIBIT R4(S)** **EXHIBIT R4(T)** **EXHIBIT R5(A)** **EXHIBIT R5(B)** **EXHIBIT R5(C)** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/12/2017 IN WPC NO.25353/2017 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/02/2018 IN WPC NO.270/2018 OF THIS** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTION TEAM UNDER SECTION 66 OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT ON 27/01/2018.** **TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 11/04/2018.** - **THE TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT CERTIFICATE AND AUDIT MEMORANDUM EVIDENCING THE DIVERSION OF FUND BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY.** - **A TABULATED STATEMENT OF OUTSTANDING LOANS AS ON 25/09/2018 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY.** **THE DETAILS OF THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY.**