- (1.) The Tirurangadi Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Society, a Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 ( 'the Act' for short), has approached this Court assailing Exhibit P3, by which the 1st respondent has ordered an inquiry under Section 65 (1) (a) of the Act.
(2.) The petitioner states that the Bank was transacting its business strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and in compliance with the circulars issued by the Registrar. However, they were served with Exhibit-P1 notice issued by the 2nd respondent, wherein it is alleged that certain irregularities were noted in the functioning of the Bank. The 2nd respondent had also asked the petitioner to show cause why he shall not recommend initiation of proceedings under Section 32 (1) of the Act. Detailing all aspects and controverting each and every allegations, Exhibit-P2 reply was submitted before the 2nd respondent by the petitioner. The petitioner had also pointed out that the 2nd respondent had no authority to issue a notice in the nature of Exhibit-P2. However, without considering Exhibit-P2 reply and basing on reports submitted by the Senior Co-Operative Auditor, the Director, Joint Audit and the Assistant Registrar/Valuation Officer, an inquiry has been ordered under Section 65 (1) (a) of the Act. According to the petitioner, it is not permissible for the 1st respondent to merely rely on the reports of his subordinate officers but the authority had to subjectively assess whether it was necessary for doing so in the facts and circumstances. The 1st respondent having failed to arrive at a subjective satisfaction to order an inquiry, the entire proceedings are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. It is on these pleadings that the instant writ petition has been preferred to declare that Exhibit-P3 is illegal and arbitrary and to quash the same.
(3.) Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the reports in Elakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. State of Kerala [1997 (2) KLT 85] and Melukarta Service Co- operative Bank Ltd No PT 152 and Another v Joint Registrar (General ), District Co-operative Society [2018 (2) KLT 640] and it was argued that it was impermissible for the Registrar to merely rely on the reports of the subordinate officers, which cannot be a substitute to his own subjective satisfaction. The 1st respondent had to discharge the duty cast upon him to subjectively assess whether ordering an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act was warranted in the facts and circumstances. The learned counsel would also point out that a month prior to issuance of Exhibit-P3, Exhibit-P1 notice was issued by the 2nd respondent warning of action under Section 32(1) of the Act and curiously enough, the same person has been authorised by the 1st respondent to conduct the inquiry under Exhibit-P3. He would also contend that none of the stipulations under Rule 66 of the Co-operative Societies Rules were complied with.;