V.R. Subhadra and others v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Office of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Palakkad; Administrative Committee, Akathhethara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (No.F.1514) and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.22714 OF 2020(L)** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **1 V.R. SUBHADRA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN C, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F.1514, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT DHAMAYANTHI MANDHIRAM, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD.** - **2 PRASEEDHA T.M., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. VIJAYAN T., MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F.1514, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT T.M.EDOM, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD.** - **3 CHANDRIKA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. SURENDRAN, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F.1514, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, CHERAD, PALAKKAD.** - **4 MOHANDAS M., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MAYAN, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F.1514, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KALMADAM, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD.** - **5 MUKUNDADASAN, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O. STHYABHAMA AMMA, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F.1514, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KALATHIL HOUSE, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD.** - **6 CHANDRAN C., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. CHAMIYAR, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F.1514, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT CHERUNGATTUKAVU, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD.** **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 2** **7 K. KOYAKUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KASIM, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F. 1514, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT BISMI MANZIL, DHONI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL), CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001.** - **2 THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F.1514, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678008, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER.** **R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIMAL K. NATH R2 BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SHRI.SREEKUMAR S** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).22284/2020(I), WP(C).22586/2020(W), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.22284 OF 2020(I)** ## **PETITIONER(S) :** - **1 N. PREMAKUMARAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. T.O. KRISHNAN, AMBATT BUNGALOW, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD - 678008.** - **2 E. SUSHEELKUMAR, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. SWAMINATHAN, ANASOOYA NIVAS, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD - 678008.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.NIKHIL BERNY** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1.** - **2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678001.** - **3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD- 678001.** - **4 AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F.1514, AKATHETHARA- 678008, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 4** - **5 ANITHA T BALAN,** - **JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678001.** - **6 N PRANAV KUMAR, CONVENOR, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F1514, AKATHETHARA - 678008, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **7 M. NITHYANANDAN,** **MEMBER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK.NO.F1514, AKATHETHARA - 678008, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **8 K. SUMESH, MEMBER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F.1514, AKATHETHARA - 678008, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **9 CIRCLE CO-OPERATIVE UNION, JAWAHAR BHAVAN, NEAR CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **10 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. P.B. NO.6515, COBANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.** - **11 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.** **R1-R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIMAL K.NATH R6-R8 BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SRI.SREEKUMAR S. R10 BY ADV. SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).22586/2020(W), WP(C).22714/2020(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 5** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.22586 OF 2020(W)** ## **PETITIONER(S):** |**1**|**SATHEESH K.,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 46 YEARS,**| ||**S/O. UNNI K.K, KIZHAKKEVEEDU, KORATHODI,**| ||**KADUKKANKUNNU P.O., PALAKKAD 678 651.**| |**2**|**RAJAN V,**| ||**AGED 63 YEARS,**| ||**S/O. VELAYUDHAN, SUBHA BHAVAN, PAPPLI,**| ||**DHONI P.O., PALAKKAD 678 009.**| ||**BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA**| ## **RESPONDENT(S):** |**1**|**THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES**| |---|---| ||**(GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF**| ||**CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CIVIL STATION,**| ||**PALAKKAD 678 001.**| |**2**|**THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)**| ||**OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD 678 001.**| |**3**|**AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.**| ||**NO.F1514, AKATHETHARA 678 008,**| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**| |**4**|**N. PRANAVKUMAR,**| ||**S/O. NANDAKUMAR, MEMBER NO.8194,**| ||**LALITHAM, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD 678 008.**| |**5**|**M. NITHYANANDAN,**| ||**S/O. VISWANATHAN A.B, MEMBER NO.7711,**| **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 6** **MANUSHYA NIVAS, KONGAPADAM, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD 678 008.** **6 K. SUMESH, S/O. KUNJAMBU C., MEMBER NO.11967, SPRING FIELD COTTAGE, HILL VIEW NAGAR, KAKKANNI, DHONI P.O., PALAKKAD 678 009.** **R1& R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIMAL K.NATH R4 TO R 6 BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SHRI.SREEKUMAR S** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).22284/2020(I), WP(C).22714/2020(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 & 22586 of 2020 7** ## **JUDGMENT** The Akathethara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. is a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Its area of operation is Akathethara Village within the limits of Palakkad District. It is a Society classified as a Class -I Supergrade Society with deposits of about Rs.250 Crores. The Society is engaged in providing financial assistance including agricultural credit, business and trade loans, consumer loans and educational loans to its members. 2. W.P.(C) No. 22714 of 2020, W.P.(C) No. 22586 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No. 22284 of 2020 have been filed by the members of the Managing Committee and its members challenging the order dated 16.10.2020 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) superseding the Managing Committee in exercise of powers under Section 32 (1) of the Act. They have also sought a direction to the Joint Registrar to reinstate the Managing Committee by removing the Administrative Committee which has been appointed by the 1st respondent. 3. Having regard to the pleadings, materials and the issues arising for consideration, these writ petitions are being heard jointly and are being decided **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 8** by this common judgment by making reference to the pleadings and exhibits made mention of in W.P.(C) No. 22284 of 2020. 4. Before proceeding further, the prefatory facts need to be stated in brief to have a clear understanding as to the turn of events. a) Based on a complaint dated 28.6.2019 said to have been submitted by the Secretary of an Organization by name ‘Akathethara Bank Protection Committee’ alleging irregularity in the disbursal of loans exceeding the borrowing limits, the 2nd respondent initiated a proceeding and forwarded the complaint to the 3rd respondent for enquiry and report. The 3rd respondent in turn authorised the Unit Inspector, Malampuzha, to conduct inspection and submit a report. After conducting an enquiry, Ext.P2 report is stated to have been submitted noting two defects. Essentially, the defect was that benefits were granted to Smt. Rashiya, W/o. Sri.Koyakutty who is one of the Directors of the Society, by granting a loan which was much in excess of the borrowing limit of Rs.25 lakhs fixed in the bye-laws of the Society. The second defect was as regards the failure of the bank to realize the amount given as NAMT loan to Sri. Mohammed Ashiq, S/o. Koyakutty. On receipt of Ext.P2 report, the 2nd respondent ordered the 3rd respondent to conduct an inspection under Section 66(1) of the Act. Ext.P3 report was submitted by the Assistant Registrar on 26.12.2019 noting five defects. The main **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 9** defect was that bypassing the valuation fixed by the Secretary and the Site Verification Officer, the Managing Committee authorised the disbursal of loans much in excess of the limits fixed by the bye-laws of the society. It is stated by the petitioners that the defect pointed out by the Assistant Registrar was rectified and the proceedings were closed. b) While so, another complaint, copy of which is produced as Ext.P4, was lodged by the Secretary of the Akathethara Bank Protection Committee reiterating the allegations. The 1st respondent again forwarded the complaint to the 3rd respondent and a report was called for. An enquiry was conducted and Ext.P6 report was submitted on 29.6.2020. In the said report, the specific allegation is that the Managing Committee had granted NAMT loan of Rs.20 lakhs to a certain Mohandas, exceeding the valuation of Rs.10 lakhs fixed by the Secretary as well as the Site Verification Officer. Another irregularity pointed out was that interest waiver of a sum of Rs.1,84,109/- was granted to Sri. Mohammed Ashiq, who had availed an NAMT loan, and this was in violation of the circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The rest of the allegations with regard to disbursal of fake gold loans were found to be not genuine. - c) On receipt of Ext.P6 report, the 2nd respondent sought an explanation from the members of the Managing Committee. He also ordered the 3rd **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 10** respondent to conduct a further enquiry to ascertain as to whether there are any other irregularities in the disbursal of loans. The Unit Inspector, Malampuzha was again deputed to conduct an inspection and submit a report. After inspection, a report was submitted before the 3rd respondent by the Unit Inspector and based on the said report, Ext.P8 report was submitted before the 2nd respondent by the Assistant Registrar. In the said report, it is stated that the Managing Committee has given undue benefits to the family members of Sri. Koyakutty, a Director of the Bank. It is specifically alleged that interest waiver of Rs.1,84,109/- was granted to Sri. Mohammed Ashiq, after expiry of the period specified in the Circular issued by the Registrar. The Managing Committee had also sanctioned 8 NAMT loans exceeding the valuation fixed by the Site Verification Officer and the Secretary. The Managing Committee granted an NAMT loan for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs to Sri. Mohandas which he had defaulted. d) On receipt of Ext.P8 report, Ext.P9 show cause notice was issued to the Managing Committee calling upon them to appear and show cause why action under Section 32(1) of the Act shall not be initiated against the Managing Committee. They appeared before the 2nd respondent and submitted Ext.P10 explanation wherein they narrated the steps that they had taken for rectifying the defects pointed out in Ext.P8. They **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 11** contended that insofar as interest waiver to Sri. Mohammed Ashiq is concerned, they had acted in terms of the One Time Settlement Scheme. However, on receipt of notice, the amount of Rs.1,84,019/together with interest of Rs.25,049/- was realized from Sri. Mohammed Ashiq and that the loan account has been closed. They stated that in view of the above, no loss was caused to the Bank. Insofar as the sanctioning of 8 NAMT loans are concerned, they contended that the loan granted to Sri. Koyakutty was a housing loan and that the amount sanctioned is much below 80% of the estimated amount and it was in the said circumstances that the Managing Committee had approved the disbursal of loan above the valuation limit fixed by the Site Verification Officer and the Secretary and being convinced that the valuation fixed by them was low and that the security furnished was more than sufficient. They further stated that, despite the above, on receipt of the notice, the amount exceeding the valuation report was paid by the individual and the principal amount as on date is much below the limit. Similar explanations were furnished in respect of the NAMT loans granted to Smt. Rashiya K., Sri. Aboobacker A.S., Sri. Joseph G., Smt. Aseena K., Shannu Y. and Smt. Mariyam. They stated before the 2nd respondent that all defects and irregularities as pointed out in Ext.P9 notice stands rectified and cleared. **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 12** e) The petitioners state that on receipt of Ext.P10 explanation, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P11 calling upon the petitioners to furnish further explanation and he also served copies of Ext.P2 to P8 enquiry report. In Ext.P11, the respondent has acknowledged the assertions of the bank in Ext.P10 about the steps taken by the bank to clear the irregularities which were pointed out by them. On receipt of Ext.P11, the petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No. 20810 of 2020 contending that Ext.P11 is mala fide and has been issued with intent to supersede the society. f) This Court by Ext.P12 judgment taking note of the fact that the challenge raised was only in respect of a show cause notice directed the petitioners to approach the 2nd respondent and furnish their explanation and thereafter take a decision in the light of the principles laid down in **State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors v. Sanjay Nagayach and Ors.** [(2013) 7 SCC 25] and **Vallapuzha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar** [2009 (3) KLT 838], wherein the factors that are to be borne in mind while initiating proceedings for superseding societies were reiterated. In terms of the directions issued, the Committee submitted Exts.P13 and P14 explanations and they were heard as well. However, by Ext.P15 order, the 2nd respondent proceeded to supersede the Managing Committee of the society and **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 13** appointed an administrative committee consisting of respondents 6 to 8 to administer the society. g) According to the petitioners, the order passed by the 2nd respondent suffers from patent illegalities. They contend that the order of supersession is politically motivated and clearly against the mandatory provisions contained in the Act. It is contended that section 32(2) of the Act provides for mandatory consultation with the Circle Cooperative Union and the financing bank before passing an order superseding the Managing Committee of a society. However, as is evident from Ext.P15 order, there has not been a meaningful consultation with either of the authorities. It is contended that for superseding a democratically elected committee it is not enough if there was some default or the committee was negligent in the performance of their duties, but it has to be shown that such default was persistent and was prejudicial to the interest of the society as well. There is nothing in the report to show that the committee had acted with culpable mind. It is further contended that before proceeding to supersede the committee, the committee should be granted an opportunity to clear the defects and irregularities, if they are curable, particularly, if some of the incidents had occurred during the period when the previous Managing Committee was in office. According to the petitioners, the loan to Sri. Mohammed **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 14** Ashiq was disbursed on 25.4.2014 for which the blame cannot be placed on the petitioners. Insofar as the disbursal of loans, it is stated that if the valuation made by the Valuation Officer is not realistic and not at par with the market price prevailing in the area, nothing prevents the Managing Committee, being the authority empowered to sanction loans as per the bye-laws, to enhance the loan amounts. All the other NAMT loans have been brought within the limits as ordered in the notice and as on date, there is nothing to show that any of the irregularities pointed out remain outstanding. This has been taken note of and acknowledged by the 2nd and 3rd respondents as well. It is contended that out of all the defects pointed out, the only loan which stands defaulted as on date is the one availed by Sri. Mohandas and the Society has initiated an Arbitration Case and has obtained an order of attachment. It is further stated that malafides is writ large as after the order of supersession, the management of the society has been entrusted to an administrative committee consisting of three members, who are local leaders of the party in power. It is further stated that Sri. N. Pranav Kumar and Sri. K. Sumesh are defaulters to the society and are facing execution proceedings. According to the petitioners, the impugned order has been passed in blatant violation of the mandatory statutory provisions and on extraneous considerations. **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 15** 5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is contended that detailed enquiry was conducted and it was found that the Managing Committee has willfully disobeyed the circulars issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and they were negligent in performing their duties. They contend that interest waiver to the tune of Rs.1.86 lakhs was granted to Sri. Mohammed Ashiq without him attending the hearing before the committee, which is clearly against the directions issued by the Registrar. It is further stated that on the very same day of granting waiver of interest, another loan to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs was disbursed to Sri. Mohammed Ashiq at 13% interest. There is no justification in granting waiver of interest of a loan availed with 16% interest and thereafter granting a fresh loan for a higher sum that too for a much lower interest rate. Insofar the loan disbursed to Mr. Mohandas, another Director of the Bank, gross discrepancies were found in respect of the valuation. It is further stated that after the administrative committee took charge, the Unit Inspector was ordered to carry out another inspection and in the inspection so carried out, it was revealed that the previous committee had disbursed 17 loans without proper security. Those loans were disbursed to various persons on the strength of very feeble security. Later, site inspection was carried out by the Assistant Registrar and it has revealed that 49 loans were granted by the previous Managing Committee without proper valuation. In respect of two housing loans granted to Sri. Anoop and Sri. Vinu, it was revealed that a sum of Rs.34 lakhs each was granted for construction of **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 16** residential houses in property having an extent of less than 4 cents. In both the cases, the said persons had received Rs.33.5 lakhs on the date of inspection itself. Though it is mandated that housing loans are to be issued taking note of the stage of work and construction, in the instant case, the committee has disbursed the money without even verifying its utilization. When the Convenor of the administrative committee enquired the matter with the Secretary of the Bank, the loans were all closed on 22.10.2020. According to the 2nd respondent, the sequence of events shows that the Managing Committee is in the habit of issuing loans without proper valuation and when it is pointed out, the loans are closed in a suspicious manner. According to the 2nd respondent, the society is carrying on financial activities and in order to ensure that the acts carried out by the society are transparent, they are bound to follow the instructions and circulars issued by the Registrar. Various other irregularities have been noted and the administrative committee is taking all steps to regularise the functioning of the society. The order passed by the 2nd respondent does not warrant any interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the contention. 6. The Convenor of the administrative committee has filed a counter in W.P.(C) No. 22714 of 2020 and the counter has been adopted in the instant case as well. He states that high value loans were disbursed without adequate security to a group of persons which include the Managing Committee members of the bank and their family members. After assuming office, a detailed **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 17** inspection of the records were conducted and it was found that in connection with two villa projects viz., Royal Villas and Pineapple Valley at Cherad and Sasthanagar respectively, within the limits of Akathethara panchayat, 42 loans have been granted to various persons who had booked villas. A site inspection report was carried out by the members of the administrative committee in the presence of the officers of the cooperative department and it was found that the construction in respect of most of the villas for which loans were granted by the bank in the year 2018 are yet to begin. It is further stated that two among the loanees Sri. Vinu K.V. and Anoop V. have not started construction yet despite the same 99% of the loan amounts have been disbursed. They have not paid even a single paise towards repayment of the loan amount. In the said circumstances, a memo was issued to the Secretary of the bank calling upon her to furnish her explanation. She pleaded ignorance and later issued Exhibit R2 (d) reply stating that the subject loan was disbursed pursuant to decisions of the Managing Committee. Later, based on notice issued by the Secretary of the bank, the respective loanees are stated to have cleared their loan accounts. It is pointed out by referring to Exhibit R2 (e) that the amounts outstanding in the loan accounts of Sri.Vinu K.V. and Sri.Anoop.V were cleared by certain individuals who had nothing to do with the availing of loans and the said individuals would include Smt.Subha Varma, the Secretary of the society. It is contended that there are strong reasons to presume that the funds of the bank were being siphoned out for real estate purposes with the connivance of the **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 18** former Managing Committee members and the Secretary of the bank. It is further stated that enquiries made by the committee has revealed that loans were being granted extensively to various persons without even ascertaining the actual value of the property and its physical status. It is further stated that the irregularities, which form the basis of the order impugned is only the tip of the iceberg and the actual magnitude of the illegalities committed by the committee ousted from the office can be ascertained only after a detailed enquiry. It is further stated that housing loans have been granted in connection with villa projects to various persons who are not even residing within the area of operation of the bank. Having come across serious financial irregularities and corruption, the 2nd respondent committee has requested the 1st respondent a further enquiry in this regard by submitting Exhibit R2 (h). 7. I have heard Sri. K.T.Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 22284 of 2020, Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior counsel as instructed by Sri. Vinod Vallikkappan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 22714 of 2020 and Smt. T.V.Neema, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 22586 of 2020, Sri Bimal.K. Nath, the learned Government Pleader and Sri. N. Raghuraj, the learned counsel appearing for the members of the Administrative Committee. 8. I have carefully evaluated the submissions advanced by both sides and have gone through the order passed by the 2nd respondent superseding **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 19** the society. 9. Before delving into the justifiability of the order of supersession of the democratically elected committee and in view of the specific contention raised by the petitioners that the mandatory provisions have been violated, I deem it appropriate to extract the relevant provision which deals with supersession of a committee. ## 32. Supersession of Committee - (1) If the Registrar, after an inquiry by himself or through his subordinates or on a report of the financing bank, or the Vigilance, and Anticorruption Bureau of the Government or the Vigilance Officer or otherwise, is satisfied that the committee of any society,- - (a) persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws or does anything which is prejudicial to the interests of the society; or - (b) wilfully disobeys or fails to comply with any lawful order or direction issued under this Act or the rules; or - (c) makes any payment contrary to this 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 wilful negligence; or - (d) misappropriates or destroys or tampers with the records or causes the destruction of records to cover up any misconduct or malpractice, he may, after giving the committee an opportunity to state its objections, if any, by **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 20** 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 [***] [Explanation I. For the Purposes of this proviso, financial assistance includes any financial assistance from the Kerala Co-operative Deposit Guarantee Fund Board, Kerala Co-operative Development and Welfare Fund Board, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, National Co-operative Development Corporation and any other financial institution under the control of the State or Central Government and also any financial financial institution under the Control of the State or Central Government and also any financial assistance guaranteed by the said institutions.] Explanation [II]. - A notice and an order given as per this clause to the President, in his absence to the Vice President or any committee member who is holding charge of President or Vice President or to the Chief Executive of a society shall be treated as an order given to the committee of the society.] [(e) Every member of the committee superseded under this section shall from the date of order of such supersession stand disqualified to contest in the election to or to be nominated to the committee of any Society or to be appointed as an administrator in any society for two consecutive terms;] [Provided that in the case of co-operative society, carrying on the business of banking, the provisions of **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 21** the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Central Act 10 of 1949) shall also apply: Provided further that in the case of a co-operative society, carrying on the business of Banking, appointment of administrator/administrative committee shall not exceed one year in the aggregate: Provided also that the board of a 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.] - (2) The Registrar shall consult the financing bank and circle cooperative union or State Co-operative Union, as the case may be, before passing an order under sub-section (1) . - (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or subsection (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- - (a) in the case of a Co-operative society only after consulting the circle co-operative union concerned; and **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 22** - (b) in the case of an Apex Society or a Central Society only after consulting the State Co-operative Union. - (4) The committee or administrator or administrators so appointed shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give [have power to exercise all or any of the powers and functions] of the committee or of any officer of the society and take all such action as may be required in the interests of the society. - (5) The committee or administrator or administrators shall, before the expiry of its or his or their terms of office, arrange for the constitution of a new committee in accordance with the byelaws of the society. - (6) Every order made by the Registrar under sub-section (1) shall be communicated to the circle co-operative union. 10. As per sub-section (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 **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 23** or damage to the assets of the society, by breach of trust or wilful negligence; or misappropriates or destroys or tampers with the records or 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 3rd 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 shareholding or loan or financial assistance or any guarantee by the Government or any Board or Institutions constituted by the Government. Going by subsection (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). Subsection (3) of Section 32, which begins with a 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 ## **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 24** 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 co-operative society only after consulting the Circle Co-operative Union concerned; and in the case of an Apex Society or a Central Society only after consulting the State Co-operative Union. 11. In **Vallapuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar** [2009 (3) KLT 838], it was held by a learned Single Judge that supersession of a democratically elected committee is a very drastic and extreme step cannot, therefore, be taken lightly for mundane violations. Only if the findings against the committee are such that the continuance of the committee would be extremely prejudicial to the interests of the Society, the exceptional and rare action under S.32 shall be taken. Findings on the culpability of the committee on their improper action should inform the action of the Registrar while initiating proceedings under S.32. In other words, the mere finding that the committee has done the acts alleged alone is not sufficient; the same should be supported by a further finding that they did the same with a culpable mind, failing which the action of the Registrar would be improper. These observations were upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala v Urukunnu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd** (2013 (2) KLT 74) and it was held that if supersession is found inevitable under exceptional circumstances, the authority should scrupulously follow the procedure **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 25** prescribed in Section 32 of the Act. This is because if a Managing Committee is superseded under Section 32, the same would attract disqualification of every member of the Managing Committee in the matter of contesting future elections to the Managing Committee for two consecutive terms. It is in view of the drastic nature of the power that the legislature has incorporated safeguards in the matter of exercise of such powers, so that it will not be arbitrary. 12. In the case on hand, the reason for supersession of the Managing Committee as is borne out from the impugned order is their act of disbursing loans exceeding the valuation fixed by the Site Verification Officer and the Secretary of the Society. There is also an allegation in respect of Sri. Mohammed Ashiq, the son of one of the Directors of the bank that waiver of interest was granted to enable him to close the loan account and on the same day itself, he was granted another loan with a lower rate of interest. It is also alleged that the committee has sanctioned eight loans exceeding the valuation fixed by the Site Verification Officer and the Secretary of the society. The specific case of the Managing Committee is that as per the approved bye-law, the maximum individual borrowing limit for housing loan is Rs. 35 lakhs and Non-Agricultural Medium-Term loan is Rs.25 lakhs. Their contention is that the bye-laws provide that housing loans shall be limited to 80% of the estimated amount. They justify the sanctioning of the excess amount by the Managing Committee on the ground that the valuation adopted by the Site Verification Officer was much low **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 26** and therefore the Managing Committee in exercise of the powers conferred to it under the bye-law sanctioned the excess amount. However, they state that as and when notice was served on them, they have recovered the amount exceeding the valuation report and the present principal due as on date is clearly within the limits as per the Circular. It is borne out from Exhibit P10 explanation submitted by the Managing Committee to Exhibit P9 show cause that the defects and irregularities pointed out in the notice has been cleared. They also stated that in so far as the loan availed by Sri. Mohandas is concerned, they have initiated arbitration proceedings for recovery of the amount and attachment has been made in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the loan. It appears from Exhibit P15 that the explanation offered by the petitioners did not dent the resolve of the Joint Registrar and he decided to go forward with the supersession holding that the irregularities were persistent, deliberate and fit to be characterised as culpable. 13. With the above fact scenario in the back of one’s mind, it would be appropriate to consider the main contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the time of hearing. Their contention is that the impugned order is liable to be set aside for non-compliance of the mandatory requirement under Section 32 (2) of the Act. The sequence of events would show that on receiving Ext.P8 report of the 3rd respondent pinpointing certain irregularities, Exhibit P9 show cause notice calling for explanation was issued on **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 27** 9.9.2020. On 17.9.2020, the petitioners submitted an explanation detailing with certainty as to why the allegations made against them were not justifiable and no further action was warranted. Immediately thereafter, Exhibit P11 letter was issued enclosing copies of the enquiry reports and the petitioners were asked to appear before the 2nd respondent. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners approached this Court contending that the issuance of the notice was with malafide intent to throw out the democratically elected committee. This Court refused to interfere noting that it was merely a show cause notice and the petitioners were directed to approach the respondent and furnish their objection and the 2nd respondent was ordered to bear in mind the principles laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court while considering whether the committee is required to be unsettled. In tune with the directions issued Exhibits P13 and P14 objections were submitted on 3.10.2020 and 12.10.2020 and as is borne out from the impugned order, the petitioners were granted an opportunity of virtual hearing on 14.10.2020. Under Section 32(2), the Registrar is required to consult the financing bank and Circle Co-operative Union or State Cooperative Union, as the case may be, before passing an order under sub-section (1). The impugned order shows that the 2nd respondent consulted the Circle Co-operative Union and they responded on 15.10.2020, that they have no objection in superseding the committee. However, there is no mention of any consultation with the Financing Bank. Though the petitioners have raised a contention that there has been no effective consultation with either the **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 28** financing bank and Circle Co-operative Union or State Co-operative Union, the same is not controverted by the 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit. 14. In **Sahadevan v. Padmanabhan** (2004 (1) KLT 192) on the question of compliance with sub-s.2 of S.32 a Division bench of this Court had occasion to observe as follows:- “Sub-s.(2) of S. 32 provides that the Registrar shall consult the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union or the State Cooperative Union as the case may be before passing an order under sub-s.(1) of S.32. It is seen from Ext.P6 that a copy of the notice dated 24-9-2003 issued under sub-s.(1) of S.32 of the Act was sent to the General Manager, Palakkad District Co-operative Bank (Financing Bank) and the Secretary, Co-operative Union, Palakkad. Apart from sending a copy of the notice, no further request or direction was made. Ext.P8 order of the Joint Registrar shows that the views of the financing bank and the Circle Co- operative Union were not received on time and therefore, the Joint Registrar proceeded on the assumption that they had nothing to say in the matter. Learned Single Judge, relying on the decisions in Jose Kuttiyani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies (AIR 1982 Ker. 12) and Elakkal Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 85) held that the mere sending of the copy of the show cause notice to the consultees would not satisfy the requirement of the provisions contained in sub-s.(2) of S.32 of the Act. According to the learned Single Judge, the notice, the reply and the tentative findings of the Joint Registrar should be forwarded to the consultees so that they can form an opinion and inform the same to the Joint Registrar. The **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 29** learned Single Judge has also pointed out that the impugned order, Ext.P8, does not show that any such consultation was made. There is no case for the appellant that, apart from sending a copy of Ext.P6 notice to the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union, the Joint Registrar had forwarded to them the explanations/objections given on behalf of the Committee and the tentative findings arrived at by the Joint Registrar after considering the explanations/objections of the Committee. Therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that, apart from sending a copy of Ext.P6 to the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union, no further action was taken by the Joint Registrar as part of the consultation process contemplated under subs.(2) of S.32 of the Act. The consultation contemplated under sub-s. (2) of S.32 of the Act can be effective and meaningful only if the show cause notice issued under S.32(1), the explanations/objections given by the Committee to such how cause notice and the tentative findings arrived at by the Joint Registrar after considering such explanations/objections are also forwarded to the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union requesting them to offer their views on the proposal to supersede the Committee. Such a consultation process has not taken place in this case. Therefore, the provisions of sub-s.(2) of S.32 of the Act have been violated. Hence, Ext.P8 order was liable to be set aside on the second ground mentioned by the learned Single Judge. ## 15. In **Urukunnu** (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had observed thus: We are of the opinion that insofar as as the Co-operative Societies should normally be managed by elected representatives, the very drastic step of superseding the Managing Committee under S.32 can be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances, that too only after **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 30** scrupulously following the procedure prescribed in S.32. In fact, if a Managing Committee is superseded under S.32 that attracts disqualification of every member of the Managing Committee in the matter of contesting future elections to the Managing Committee for two consecutive terms. It is in view of the drastic nature of the power that the legislature has incorporated safeguards in the matter of exercise of such powers, so that it will not be arbitrary. Therefore, we are of opinion that sub-s.2 is mandatory unless the Joint Registrar gives very cogent and acceptable reasons for dispensing with such requirement. The least that is expected of the third appellant is to give some indication in the order itself as to why the Joint Registrar had chosen to dispense with the consultation with a Financing Bank and Circle Co-operative Union. As admitted in Ext.P7 itself that procedure has not been complied with and no reasons worth mentioning has been stated in the order. 16. In **Sanjay Nagayach** (supra), the Apex Court while considering the supersession of a committee registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act had held that previous consultation was a condition precedent. It was further held that the consultation must be effective, since that would be a relevant material to consider the extreme step of supersession. The consultation, required by Statute, to oust a democratically elected body was construed as mandatory. While issuing sweeping directions, it was directed as under: “Registrar/Joint Registrar are legally obliged to comply with all the statutory formalities, including consultation with the financing **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 31** banks/Controlling Banks etc. Only after getting their view, an opinion be formed as to whether an elected Committee be ousted or not”. 17. In **Krishnan Nair v Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies** [2014 (1) KLT 116], a learned Single Judge of this Court had held that the hedged-in safeguards cannot be reduced to an empty formality rendering the process a mere farce. S.32 cannot be reduced to a naming ceremony, intended only at hanging the named one and it also cannot be assumed that the consultants would have concurred with the Registrar. 18. In the instant case, there is no dispute to the fact that the Financing Bank has not been consulted. Even in respect of the Circle Cooperative Union, a request was made on 15.10.2020 and they are said to have stated that they have no objection on the same day leading to the supersession on 15.10.2020. It has been laid down, time and time again, that the consultation contemplated under subsection (2) can be effective and meaningful only of the show cause notice issued under section 32 (1), the explanation/ objections given by the committee to the said show-cause notice and the tentative findings arrived at by the Joint Registrar after considering such explanations/ objections are also forwarded to the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union requesting them to offer their views on the proposal to supersede the committee. As held by this Court in **Jose Kuttiyani and Others v The Registrar of Cooperative** **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 32** **Societies** [AIR 1982 Ker. 12] though it is for the Registrar to be satisfied that whether circumstances exist for supersession of the Society, such satisfaction cannot be arbitrary. The legislature has prescribed very strict formalities before embarking upon the act of supersession of an elected body. When procedural formalities which are prescribed under the statute are dispensed with, the burden of the 2nd respondent to justify its act will be very high. The 2nd respondent ought to have been conscious of the fact that his act of superseding the Society by bypassing the formalities prescribed under the statute had serious repercussions to the members of the Committee as they are disqualified to be a member for a period of one year as provided under Rule 44 (1) (k) of the Rules. Section 32 (1)(e) of the Act provides that every member of the committee superseded under the said provision shall from the order of such supersession stand disqualified to contest in the election to or to be nominated to the committee of any society of to be appointed as an administrator in any society for two consecutive terms. Thus there can be no manner of doubt that an order of supersession without following the procedure embodied above have far-reaching consequences on the rights of the members of the superseded committee. In that view of the matter, the order impugned cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be interfered with. Going by the binding precedents of the Apex Court as also this Court, it cannot be said that the mandatory provisions under Section 32 (2) has been complied with in the instant case. **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** ## **22586 of 2020 33** 19. Of course, the learned Government Pleader had placed much reliance on an unreported judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in W.P.(C) No.31727 of 2016 wherein this Court taking note of the fact that the order passed suffers from lack of consultation, had set aside the order but did not proceed to reinstate the managing committee. However, the said judgment was rendered in the peculiar facts of the said case. I find no reason to ignore the binding precedents of this Court as well as the Apex Court which have been noted above. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of supersession dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Joint Registrar (General) by which the Managing Committee of the Akathethara Co-operative Society was superseded and an Administrative Committee was appointed is set aside. The Managing Committee shall be restored to office forthwith. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the specific allegations raised in the notice issued on the basis of an enquiry under Section 66 nor has this Court examined whether the ingredients of Section 32 are available, with respect to the allegations in the notice. The Joint Registrar will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under the Act and the Rules on the basis of the report said to have been filed by the Assistant Registrar or on the basis of further irregularities, if any, noticed but after serving a proper notice on the Managing Committee or its members, as stipulated and permissible in the Act **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 34** and Rules. These Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent above. There will be no order as to costs. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** NS **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 35** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22714/2020** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.3738/2020/C.R.P2 DATED 16.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO. 1275/2019/MAL. DATED 16.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, PALAKKAD.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO.1275/2019/MAL. DATED 07.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, PALAKKAD, WITHOUT ENCLOSURES.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.3738/2020/C.R.P. DATED 09.09.2020 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 17.09.2020 WITH ENCLOSURE.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.3738/2020/C.R.P2 DATED 22.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 03.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY PRESIDENT OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2020 IN WP(C) NO.20810/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 21.10.2020.** **EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.10.2020. EXHIBIT R2(c) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED** **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 36** **22.10.2020. EXHIBIT R2(d) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.10.2020. EXHIBIT R2(e) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRANSACTION PASSING REPORT PERTAINING TO THE ACCOUNTS OF VINU K.V. AND ANOOP V. DATED 22.10.2020. EXHIBIT R2(f) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 27.10.2020. EXHIBIT R2(g) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.10.2020. EXHIBIT R2(h) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION.** **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 37** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22284/2020** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF BYE LAWS OF THE SOCIETY.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 16.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 26.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY INSPECTOR.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 06.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY ALLEGED AKATHETHARA BANK SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.03.2020 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 29.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 06.07.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 07.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 09.09.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY EXPLANATION DATED 17.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.09.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.20810/2020. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 03.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 12.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS.** **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 38** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 21/10/2020.** **EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/10/2020.** **EXHIBIT R2(c) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 22/10/2020.** **EXHIBIT R2(d) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/10/2020.** **EXHIBIT R2(e) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRANSACTION PASSING REPORT PERTAINING TO THE ACCOUNTS OF VINU K.V. AND ANOOP V. DATED 22/10/2020. EXHIBIT R2(f) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 27/10/2020. EXHIBIT R2(g) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27/10/2020. EXHIBIT R2(h) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION.** **WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &** **22586 of 2020 39** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22586/2020** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28-06-2019 FILED ONE MR. REGHU.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16-08-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, PALAKKAD TO THE JOINT REGISTRAR WITH TYPED COPY.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3-7-2020 ALONG WITH REPORT SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BANK.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7-09-2020 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION/REPLY DATED 17-09-2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-09-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.20810/2020 DATED 6-10-2020.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-10-2020 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR U/S.32(1) OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9-9-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 3-10-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12-10-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** |**WP(C).Nos.22714, 22284 &**| |---| |**22586 of 2020 40**| |**RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS :**| |**EXHIBIT R2(a)**<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT SUBMITTED**| |**BY THE UNIT INSPECTOR.**| |**EXHIBIT R2(b)**<br>**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE**| |**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL).**|