Police Staff Co-operative Society Ltd. No. T.686, Trivandrum represented by its President v State of Kerala and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/23RD SRAVANA 1934 WP(C).No. 19169 of 2012 (U) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- 1. THE POLICE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.686, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VAZHUTHAKKAD TRIVANDRUM - 695014. 2. T.S.BAIJU, THE PRESIDENT, THE POLICE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.686, TRIVANDRUM, VAZHUTHAKKAD TRIVANDRUM-695 014. BY ADVS.SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM - 695035. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) CHENKALCHOOLA, TRIVANDRUM – 695 001. 4. G.R.AJITH, MELEATTUPURATH VEEDU, AMBALAMUKHU, KOWDIAR P.O. TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT - 695003. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI D.SOMASUNDARAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19169 of 2012 (U) ||**A P P E N D I X**| |---|---| |EXT.P-1|THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CS1423/12 DATED| ||10.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.| |EXT.P-2|THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.5.2012| ||NO.CS 1423/12 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.| |EXT.P-3|THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 21.5.2012| ||IN WPC NO.11410 OF 2012 (A) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE| ||HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.| |EXT.P-4|THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS 1423/12 DATED| ||22.5.2012 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF| ||DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, TRIVANDRUM TO SRI.K.BABU| |EXT.P-5|THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CS 7285/11 DATED| ||15.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF| ||DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, TRIVANDRUM, TO 1ST| ||PETITIONER.| |EXT.P-6|THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF TH REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR| ||NO.PTM/2426/2011 DATED 11.6.2011 TO THE JOINT REGISTRAR| ||(GENERAL) TRIVANDRUM.| |EXT.P-7|THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST| ||PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT-P5 NO.PSCS 98/12 DATED 13.7.2012| |EXT.P-8|THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT| ||STAYING THE GENERAL BODY MEETING SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON| ||29.6.2012 NO.CS 6013/12| |EXT.P-9|THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CS 7285/11 DATED| ||25.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF| ||DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, TRIVANDRUM.| |EXT.P-10|THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.8.2012 SUBMITTED| ||BY THE SECOND PETITIONER TO THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)| ||OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, TRIVANDRUM.| /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE ## **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------W.P(c) No.19169 of 2012-U ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The first petitioner is a co-operative society consisting of members who are working in the Police Department in Trivandrum district and registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (`the Act' for short) and the Rules thereunder. The second petitioner is the President of the first petitioner. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P9 show cause notice issued by the 2[nd] respondent. Ext.P9 show cause notice is issued under Section 32 of the Act. 2. According to the petitioners, the present Managing Committee of the society took charge on 15.05.2010. The total number of the society's Managing Committee members is 9. Out of the above, 3 members have already been disqualified and another member has been removed from the membership of the Managing Committee. The 3 members have challenged their disqualification in appeal, which is pending consideration of the Government. Since the required quorum of the Managing Committee is 5, the remaining are conducting the management 2 **W.P(c) No.19169 of 2012-U** of the society. The allegation of the petitioners is that attempts are being made on political considerations to oust the elected Managing Committee from office. The disqualification of the 3 members of the Managing Committee as well as the removal of the fourth member are all submitted to be part of the political manoeuvres. The petitioner has been issued with a notice Ext.P5 pointing out certain defects. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P7 the defects have all been rectified. Thereafter no further action has been taken in the matter. Without completing the action initiated by Ext.P5, it is contended that, Ext.P9 show cause notice has been issued. It is also contended that Ext.P9 is issued for the purpose of superseding an elected Managing Committee. The same was not preceded by an enquiry under Section 65 of the Act. A perusal of Ext.P9 shows that the very same defects that were pointed out in Ext.P5 have been enumerated in Ext.P9 also without taking note of the fact that the said defects have been rectified by Ext.P7. Therefore, it is contended that the 2[nd] respondent has already made up his mind to supersede the committee and Ext.P9 has been issued only to make it appear that the statutory requirements have been complied with. For the above reason, it is contended that Ext.P9 3 **W.P(c) No.19169 of 2012-U** is liable to be set aside by this Court. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader opposes the contentions of the petitioner. According to the Special Government Pleader, the attempt of the petitioner to give a political colour to the entire action initiated in this case is without any justification. He points out that even according to the petitioner, the Government has stayed the action of the 2[nd] respondent in disqualifying one of the members of the Managing Committee. If the Government had a political agenda to be accomplished, the said order of stay that enables the elected Managing Committee to continue in office would not have been granted. It is the further contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that all the allegations in Ext.P9 relate to the period during which the present Managing Committee has been in power. Ext.P9 is only a show cause notice on the basis of which no action prejudicial to the petitioner has been initiated by the 2[nd] respondent so far. In the absence of compelling circumstances to draw an inference that the 2[nd] respondent has made up his mind to reject the contentions of the petitioner, it is pointed out that the said notice cannot be the subject matter of a challenge before this Court. It is also pointed out that the 4 **W.P(c) No.19169 of 2012-U** apprehension of the petitioner is not supported by any material or evidence. Mere apprehension of the petitioners that the authority is likely to decide against them is not a ground for interfering with the show cause notice. Two decisions of a Division Bench of this Court are also relied upon to support the above contentions. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri N.Nandakumara Menon, who appears for the petitioner as well as Sri D.Somasundaram, the learned Special Government Pleader. 5. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously. It is true that the allegations contained in Ext.P5 are more or less similar to the ones made mention of in Ext.P9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by Ext.P5 are only trivial and are not sufficient to justify a supersession of the Managing Committee. Nevertheless, according to the Senior Counsel, the defects have been rectified and they no longer subsist. The above has been reported to the 2[nd] respondent also as per Ext.P7. However, it is submitted that in spite of Ext.P7, Ext.P9 has been issued. 6. It is to be noticed from Ext.P9 that reference has been **W.P(c) No.19169 of 2012-U** 5 made in Ext.P9, to Ext.P7 report submitted by the petitioner. However, the explanation in Ext.P7 has obviously not been accepted. By the issue of Ext.P9, cause has therefore been directed to be shown as to why proceedings under Section 32 should not be initiated against the present Managing Committee. There is nothing in Ext.P9 to indicate that the authority has reached any final conclusion regarding the aspects on which explanation has been sought for by Ext.P9. In view of the decisions reported in **State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr** . [A.I.R 1987 SC 943] and **Anilbhai.M Patel & Ors. v. Suryapur Bank Agent DBH Samiti & Ors.** (2007) 4 SCC 83, notices directing a person to show cause are not to be interfered with. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in **Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra** [2007(1) KLT 88(SC)] wherein it has been held that, in appropriate cases where it is evident that the authority has pre-judged the issues, interference is permissible. However, in the present case there is no justification for warranting such a conclusion. Mere apprehension of the petitioners that the order to be passed pursuant to Ext.P9 would be against them, is no ground to interfere with Ext.P9, as has been held by this Court in 6 ## **W.P(c) No.19169 of 2012-U** the decision reported in **Narayanan Nair v. Vaikom Palliprathusserry S.C.B** [2003(2) KLT 44] and **Joint Registrar** **of Cooperative Societies (General), Malappuram v. P.Krishnan** Nair [2009(4) KHC 58]. 7. For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that Ext.P9 requires to be interfered with at this stage. It is to be borne in mind that the 2[nd] respondent may also accept the explanation of the petitioners and drop all further proceedings in the matter. It shall certainly be open to the petitioners to challenge the order that may be passed by the 2[nd] respondent pursuant to Ext.P9, if the same is adverse to them. At present, this Writ Petition is premature. Therefore, the same is dismissed as premature. ## _**(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)**_ rtr/