P. T. Ajay Mohan v. State of Kerala and Others (W.P.(C). No. 24441 of 2017)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- The Hon. Mr. Justice Anil K. Narendran
- Judgment Date
- 2019-02-14
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is disposed of with directions. Within two weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, the petitioner and the members of the Managing Committee against whom there are findings shall submit explanations. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent (Joint Registrar) shall consider those explanations, with notice to the petitioner and the Managing Committee, and take an appropriate decision as to the further course in the matter, taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sanjay Nagayach’s case. The process should be completed expeditiously, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Correction: the operative portion now reads that the 3rd respondent shall act, instead of the 1st respondent, as clarified by the I.A. correction.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of with directions
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- P. T. Ajay Mohan, President, Andathode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of Cooperation, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Malappuram
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv. George Poonthottam (Sr.)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri Mohammed Hashim, Special Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
P. T. Ajay Mohan, aged 52, is the President of Andathode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Kerala Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. He approached the High Court under Article 226 challenging Ext.P11, dated 17 June 2017, issued by the 3rd respondent Joint Registrar, ordering an inquiry under Section 65 and, by implication, an inspection under Section 66 of the Act. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P11 and to declare that the inquiry and inspection scheme, without an effective remedy to the aggrieved party, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. On admission, the Court granted interim orders restricting finalisation of Ext.P11 proceedings pending further directions. A report dated 9 March 2018 from the Inquiry Officer was placed on record. The respondents contend that the findings in the inquiry report should guide the next steps, with notice and opportunity to the Society and the Managing Committee members who face findings. The Court, however, while noting the ongoing inquiry, observed that the legality of Ext.P11 need not be decided at this stage, and directed that, based on the Sanjay Nagayach principle (State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach, [(2013) 7 SCC 25]), the 3rd respondent decide the future course after hearing the aggrieved parties. The process was to be completed promptly, with explanations due within two weeks and final determination within two months, and a correction was issued to replace references to the 1st respondent with the 3rd respondent in the operative portion.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Bona fide exercise of power
- Formation of opinion based on objective criteria
- Not speak masters' voice / not act with preconceived motive
- Act within four corners of the Statute
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that Ext.P11 is not the product of an independent exercise of power and that the inquiry under Section 65 and inspection under Section 66 is undertaken without adequate remedy or fair hearing, rendering the order arbitrary and unconstitutional. It seeks quashing of Ext.P11 and a declaration that the entire inquiry/inspection regime is invalid for violating statutory safeguards. The petitioner emphasizes the need for reasons and due process, contending that the remedy provided by the existing scheme cannot be invoked to defeat the statutory framework. The writ petition thus prays for a judicial review of the order and for reliefs grounded in principles of natural justice and statutory compliance.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that Ext.P11 was issued under statutory power and that the inquiry report dated 9 March 2018 furnishes a basis for further action by the Joint Registrar, subject to notice and opportunity for the Society and the Managing Committee members against whom findings have been recorded. They contend that the interim order allowed the inquiry to continue and that the court need not decide the legality of Ext.P11 at this stage. They rely on the decision in State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach to urge that the Registrar must act bona fide and within the four corners of the statute, and that the court should direct the appropriate next steps in light of the inquiry findings and the principles enunciated in the cited case."},
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach | [(2013) 7 SCC 25] | Positive | Cited to emphasize that supersession must be bona fide and based on objective criteria and within the statute; used to guide the court’s directions on fair procedure and timely resolution. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. T. Ajay Mohan v. State of Kerala and Others (W.P.(C). No. 24441 of 2017) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.