WP(C) Nos. 40266/2017; 366/2018; 16828/2018; and 22866/2018 v. State of Kerala and Others (Sreekandamangalam Service Co-operative Bank cases)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 40266 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 E.J.THOMAS AGED 63 YEARS S/O. E. T. JOSEPH, AGED 63 YEARS, EDATHICHIRA, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE-688527. 2 ANTONY AGED 48 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS, PATTUKULANGARA, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN CODE-688527. BY ADV SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALAPPUZHA-688001. 3 SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.974 MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-688527. **WP(C) NO. 40266 OF 2017 -2-** ***ADDL. R4** K.N ANJANEYAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 66 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, NOW RESIDING AT KARIKKATTIL ILLAM, MUTTATHIPARAMBU PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ***[ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDERS OF THIS COURT DATED 14.03.2018 IN IA NO.4564/2018]** BY ADVS. BY SMT.SHEEJA C.S., SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.B.HOOD SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.M.ISHA SRI.AMAL KASHA SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).366/2018, 16828/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 366 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 R. SASIDHARAN SARADALAYAM, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2 P.GOPAKUMAR KOONAIKAL, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3 ARCHANA.S KIZHAKKE MANGALATH, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4 VIDHYA UNNIKRISHNAN KANICHERRY HOUSE, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O.,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.974 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O.,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 527. 2 THE PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.974,MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 527. 3 THE RETURNING OFFICER SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.974, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 527. (UNIT INSPECTOR, KANJIKUZHI, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CHERTHALA). **WP(C) NO. 366 OF 2018 -2-** 4 THE ELECTORAL OFFICER SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.974, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 527.(ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CHERTHALA). 5 THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CO-OPERATION(C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADVS. SRI.AMAL KASHA SRI.T.B.HOOD SMT.M.ISHABY SMT.SHEEJA C.S., SR. GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).40266/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 16828 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 R.SASIDHARAN AGED 55 YEARS SARADALAYAM,MARUTHORVATTOM.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2 P.GOPAKUMAR KONNAIKAL,MUTTATHIPARAMBU.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3 ARCHANA.S KIZHAKKE MANGALATH,MUTTATHIPARAMBU.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4 VIDHYA UNNIKRISHNAN KANICHERY HOUSE,MUTTATHIPARAMBU.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MUTTATHIPARAMBU.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT688527. 2 THE PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.974,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MUTTATHIPARAMBU.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT688527. 3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIESGENERAL ALAPPUZHA-688001. **WP(C) NO. 16828 OF 2018 -2-** 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CO-OPERATIVE (C)DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001. BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN BY SMT.SHEEJA C.S., SR. GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).40266/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 22866 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 E.J.THOMAS MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE, BANK LTD. NO.674, SREEKANTAMANGALAM, MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2 ANTONY PATTUKULANGARA MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674, SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3 R. SASIDHARAN MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674, SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4 P. GOPAKUMAR MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674, SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5 ARCHANA S. MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674, SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6 VIDHYA UNNIKRISHNAN MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674, SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 7 M. ROCKY MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674, SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. **WP(C) NO. 22866 OF 2018 -2-** 8 K.P. THIRUMENI MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS,THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE,BANK LTD. NO.674, SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SMT.NISHA GEORGE ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITIES (GENERAL) ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 2 THE SREEKANTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.974 SREEKANTAMANGALAM,MUTTITHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE. BY SMT.SHEEJA C.S., SR. GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).40266/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **SATHISH NINAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W. P. (C) Nos.40266 of 2017, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2021** **J U D G M E N T** W.P.(C) No.40266/2017 and W.P.(C) No.16828/2018 challenge an order of surcharge and consequential disqualification against the petitioners who are Managing Committee members of the Sreekantamangalam Service Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”). W.P.(C) No.366/2018 is filed challenging an election notification to the Managing Committee which was issued pending the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of surcharge. W.P.(C) No.22866/2018 challenges the order of appointment of an Administrator consequent on the order of surcharge and disqualification. **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 2 :- 2. On 03.10.2016, the Joint Registrar issued an order for enquiry under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as against the Society. On 18.11.2016, the report under Section 65 was filed. It was followed by surcharge proceedings under Section 68, initiated as per order dated 19.12.2016. Based on the report under Section 68, a notice for hearing in terms of Section 68(2) was issued to the petitioners. The proceedings culminated in Ext.P8 order of surcharge dated 03.06.2017, against the petitioners. The order of surcharge entailed in disqualification of the petitioners in terms of Rule 44(l) of the Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), from being members of the Managing Committee of the Society. The appeal preferred against the order of surcharge and disqualification was **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 3 :- dismissed by the Government as per Ext.P10 order. The sustainability thereof is essentially the issue for consideration in these writ petitions. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.George Poonthottam and Sri.T.R.Harikumar on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.P.C. Sasidharan and Sri.T.B.Hood, the Special Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents. 4. The proceedings in question commenced on the purchase of an extent of 3.64 Ares of property in Survey No.24-112/1-2 and 6/3 of Thanneermukkam North Village on 11.07.2016. The allegation is that the said purchase was in violation of the Rules, and has caused loss to the Society. 5. In the reports of the enquiry under Section 65 and Section 68, the following aspects were noted:- **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 4 :- (1) Prior sanction of the Registrar for purchase of the property, as required under Rule 54 of the Rules was not obtained. (2) The purpose of acquisition is stated to be for the establishment of a branch of the Bank. But the property in question is hardly 600 metres away from the head office. - (3) Right through the middle of the property in - question runs a 'thodu'. - (4) At one corner of the property in question there - exists a pond. - (5) L.T. electric lines pass over the middle of the - property. (6) Through the eastern boundary of the property runs a 11 KV electric line and the stay wire of the electric post is planted in the property in question. **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 5 :- - (7) The valuation of the property, as reported by the Tahsildar is `2,72,733/-, whereas the sale consideration paid is `14,40,000/-. 6. On the above, the authorities found that the acquisition of the property violates the Rule and also that, the property acquired was neither necessary nor could be put for the purported use, thus resulting in loss to the Society out of wilful negligence or mismanagement. ## 7. The petitioners contend that:- - (a) The objection submitted in the 68(2) proceeding - was not considered by the authorities. - (b) Violation of Rule 54 cannot result in the - proceeding under Section 68. - (c) The vendee (original owner) of the property has come forward for re-purchase of the property and hence **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 6 :- no loss is caused to the Society. - (d) The actual loss caused to the Society has not - been quantified. (e) The statute requires a provisional order to be passed prior to passing of the final order of surcharge. The same has been violated. - (f) The electric lines passing over the property - have since been relocated out of the property. 8. On the above, the petitioners contend that the order of surcharge and the consequential order of disqualification are unsustainable. 9. Rule 54 of the Rules require previous sanction of the Registrar for acquisition of property by a Society. However, it is subject to a proviso that such sanction is not necessary where the objects of the Society according to its bye-laws include such purchase. **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 7 :- According to the petitioners, one of the objects of the Society, as stated in the bye-laws, is acquisition of the property and hence, in terms of the proviso to Rule 54(1) previous sanction of the Registrar is not necessary. The question as to whether the proviso applies to all cases where bye-law contains a clause for acquisition of property or whether it applies to only Societies formed with such objects like housing Societies etc., is pending consideration by a Division Bench of this Court, on a reference. The view taken by this Court, as of now is that, if the bye-laws contain a provision enabling acquisition of property, previous sanction is not necessary. In view thereof, in the case at hand it cannot be held that the failure to obtain sanction from the Registrar amounts to violation of the Rules. Therefore, the finding of the authorities that **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 8 :- proceedings under Section 68 is liable to be invoked consequent to violation of Rule 54 is unsustainable and the said finding is set aside. 10. The factual findings entered into by the authorities, as mentioned in Serial Numbers 2 to 6 are not as such disputed by the petitioners. As regards finding No.7, regarding the value of the property, the petitioners would contend that the value for which the conveyance was executed is the market value of the property. 11. As noted by the authorities, the purpose of acquisition of the property is stated to be for establishment of a branch office. But the fact remains that, the property in question is situated hardly 600 metres away from the head office. In the said view of the matter, the acquisition was unnecessary. That apart, **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 9 :- there is a “thodu” running right through the middle of the property. Here, it is to be remembered that the property in question has an extent of only 3.64 Ares and the existence of a “thodu” right through the middle of the property would divide the property into two halves thereby making the property unsuitable for any effective purpose, especially for construction of a branch office. Added to this is the fact that, there exists a pond in one corner of the property. The existence of L.T. and eleven KV lines over the property and that a stay wire for electric post is planted in the property is not disputed, though it is contended that the same have been got shifted. The authorities have found that, going by the report of the Tahsildar, the property in question was purchased for a value of more than six times for which it is actually worth. No materials were produced **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 10 :- by the petitioners to prove that the actual market value of the property is as is reflected in the sale in question. Therefore, on the materials available, the finding of the authorities that the acquisition of property in question has caused loss to the Society, is justified. 12. Though the petitioners contend that the original owner has come forward for re-purchase of the property and therefore, no loss has been caused to the Society, it is to be noted that, right from the initiation of proceedings in the year 2016, this was the stand adopted. However, the fact remains that even as on the date of passing of the surcharge order and even as on today, the sale consideration paid by the Society has not been recouped. Therefore, the said contention is of no avail to the petitioner. **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 11 :- 13. The petitioners urge that, even if the valuation as adopted by the Tahsildar is accepted still the authorities went wrong in fixing the entire sale consideration as the liability/loss. The value of the property as assessed by the Tahsildar should have been deducted from the amount paid; thus, there has been no proper quantification of the actual loss suffered by the Society. For the said reason, the surcharge order is bad, is another contention. As noticed supra, the acquisition of property in question for the purpose of the Society was unnecessary. The purchased property could not be put to the use of the Society. The property is yet to come to the hands of the Society due to some tussle with the registration authorities. When the property will be obtained by the Society, when it could be sold, what would be the value it might fetch are all **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 12 :- uncertain. As of now it could only be concluded that, the purchase of the property has caused loss to the Society to the tune of the entire sale consideration paid by the Society. 14. Relying on the judgment of this Court in _**Sanathanan Pillai V. & Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Kollam and Anr. [ILR 2015 (2) Ker. 543]** ,_ the learned Senior Counsel would contend that, before passing an order of surcharge, a provisional order should have been passed granting the petitioners an opportunity to pay off the alleged loss sustained by the Society. It is only on failure to comply with the said order could a final order of surcharge be passed, contends the learned counsel. There is no provision under the Act or the Rules requiring issuance of such a provisional order. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 13 :- petitioners also does not lay down such a proposition. That was a case where, pursuant to a notice under Section 68(2) the amount shown in the notice as liability, was repaid by the Committee. In spite of the payment, a surcharge order was passed for payment of interest. The same was interfered with by this Court. The said decision has no reference to the case at hand. 15. To sum up, the materials on record speak volumes that the acquisition of property in question was not in the interests of the Society and has caused the loss to the Society by the wilful negligence and mismanagement. The finding of the authorities, resulting in the order of surcharge are based on materials. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings. 16. Having found that the order of surcharge is not liable to be interfered with, the challenge against the **WP(C) Nos.40266/17, 366, 22866 & 16828 of 2018** -: 14 :- consequential disqualification under Rule 44(l) of the Rules fails; so does the challenge against the election notification and the order of appointment of the Administrator. In the result, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. Sd/- **SATHISH NINAN** **JUDGE** kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 366/2018** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT-P1:|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)512/2017| |---|---| ||DATED 17.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT| ||REGISTRAR<br>OF<br>CO-OPERATIVE<br>SOCIETIES,| ||ALAPPUZHA.| |EXHIBIT-P2:|A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C)| ||NO.9725 OF 2017 DATED 11.04.2017.| |EXHIBIT-P3:|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)4143/2016| ||DATED 03.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT| ||REGISTRAR<br>OF<br>CO-OPERATIVE<br>SOCIETIES| ||(GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA.| |EXHIBIT-P4:|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)4143/2016| ||DATED 27.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT| ||REGISTRAR<br>OF<br>CO-OPERATIVE<br>SOCIETIES| ||(GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA.| |EXHIBIT-P5:|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.35445| ||OF 2017 DATED 10.11.2017.| |EXHIBIT-P6:|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE| ||DESABHIMANI DAILY DATED 23.11.2017.| |EXHIBIT-P7:|A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION| ||NO.E(1) 6728/2017/S.C.E.C DATED 14.12.2017.| |EXHIBIT-P8:|A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION| ||PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED| ||27.12.2017.| ----- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16828/2018** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO.673 DATED| |---|---| ||19.02.2015.| |EXHIBIT P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.03.2016| |EXHIBIT P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED| ||17.03.2016| |EXHIBIT P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED| ||19.03.2016| |EXHIBIT P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENCUMBRANCE| ||DATED 10.11.2016| |EXHIBIT P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN| ||ANJANEYAN NAMBOODITHIRI AND 1ST PETITIONER DATED| ||15.06.2016.| |EXHIBIT P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 11.07.2016| |EXHIBIT P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO.818 DATED| ||31.03.2016| |EXHIBIT P9|A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED| ||14.10.2016| |EXHIBIT P10|A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED| ||18.11.2016| |EXHIBIT P11|A TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO.336 DATED| ||28.10.2016| |EXHIBIT P12|A TRUE COPY OF A REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE| ||3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2016| |EXHIBIT P13|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)4143/2016| ||DATED 03.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P14|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)/4143/2016| ||DATED 27.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P15|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2018 IN| ||W.A.NO.77 OF 2018| |EXHIBIT P16|A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(ORD)NO.268/2018/CO-OP| ||DATED 04-05.2018.| ----- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22866/2018** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1.|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2017 IN| |---|---| ||W.P.(C)NO.40266 OF 2017 PASSED BY THIS| ||HON'BLE COURT| |EXHIBIT P2.|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2018 IN| ||W.A.NO.77 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE| ||COURT| |EXHIBIT P3.|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2018 IN| ||W.A.NO.165 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE| ||COURT| |EXHIBIT P4.|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.5.2018 IN| ||W.P.(C)NO.16828 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS| ||HON'BLE COURT| |EXHIBIT P5.|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||5.6.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE| ||JOINT REGISTRAR| |EXHIBIT P6.|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C.R.P. (1)| ||4143/2016 DATED 27.06.2017 PASSED BY THE| ||JOINT REGISTRAR| ----- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40266/2017** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED| |---|---| ||18.11.2016.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. C. R. P.| ||(1)512/2017 DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED BY THE| ||2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING| ||NO.C. R. P.(1)4143/2016 DATED 27.06.2017| ||PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. C. R. P.| ||(1)4143/2016 DATED 05.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE| ||2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/NOTICE NO.C. R. P.| ||(1)4143/2016 DATED 17.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE| ||2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST| ||PETITIONER DATED 31.05.2017.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND| ||PETITIONER DATED 30.05.2017 WITH ENCLOSED| ||DOCUMENTS.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C. R. P.| ||(1)4143/2016 DATED 03.06.2017 PASSED BY THE| ||2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.530/2017 FILED BY| ||THE PETITIONERS AGAINST THE ORDER SURCHARGE| ||BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE<br>COPY<br>OF<br>THE<br>ORDER<br>G.O.(RT)| ||NO.636/2017/CO-OP DATED 24.11.2017 PASSED BY| ||THE GOVERNMENT.| -----