Case at a Glance
On 25.07.2026 the Director of Dairy Development superseded the elected Managing Committee of the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union without a show-cause notice or consultation, invoking Section 32(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 amid allegations about ghee supplied to Sabarimala. A Single Judge upheld the action citing a risk of record tampering. The Division Bench held that supersession is an exception to be used only in very exceptional circumstances, that there was no basis to presume the members would tamper with records already in the authorities’ hands, and set aside both orders, directing reinstatement forthwith and a fresh decision after following Section 32(1) and (2).
The appellants are members of the Managing Committee of the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd, a regional union under the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (MILMA). Acting on a report dated 16.07.2026 by the Joint Director (General) under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the Director, Dairy Development Department superseded the Committee on 25.07.2026. No show-cause notice was issued and the State Co-operative Union was not consulted, on the ground that doing so was not reasonably practicable.
Section 32(1) requires an opportunity to the committee to state its objections before supersession, and Section 32(2) requires consultation with the financing bank and the circle or State Co-operative Union; Section 32(3) allows these to be dispensed with only where they are “not reasonably practicable”. On 08.09.2026 a Single Judge dismissed the committee members’ writ petitions, holding that the Registrar had enough material on a substantial allegation about ghee supply to Sabarimala and that the risk of tampering with records justified invoking Section 32(3). The members appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the Director justified in superseding an elected co-operative managing committee under Section 32(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 without notice and consultation, on the strength of allegations about ghee supply to Sabarimala and an apprehended risk of tampering?
The Exception Must Be Construed Strictly
Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Rajeevan T.V. v. K.A. Sukumaran, (2013) 06 KL CK 0053, the Court reiterated that “supersession of an elected managing committee/board is an exception” to be resorted to only in very exceptional circumstances, and that the safeguards of Section 32(1) and (2) can be dispensed with only where “it is not reasonably practicable to do so.” “It is settled law that an exception in a Section of an enactment has to be construed strictly.” The Supreme Court’s decision in State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach, (2013) 05 SC CK 0051, on the need for objective and bona fide reasons for superseding elected bodies, was also relied on.
On the facts, the appellants had cooperated fully with the inquiry, and the Section 66 report of 16.07.2026 showed that the authorities already held the relevant material, which had been supplied by the Managing Director to the Inquiry Officer. “This suggests that there was no question of the appellants tampering with or suppressing the said material,” and “there was no justification for harbouring a presumption that the appellants would tamper with or destroy material that could be used against them.” The invocation of Section 32(3) was therefore not justified, and the Single Judge’s view could not be sustained.
What the Court Actually Held
- Supersession of an elected co-operative managing committee is an exception, to be used only in very exceptional circumstances.
- Section 32(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which permits dispensing with notice and consultation, must be construed strictly.
- A mere apprehension of tampering, when the relevant records are already with the authorities and members have cooperated, does not justify bypassing Section 32(1) and (2).
- The Single Judge’s judgment of 08.09.2026 and the supersession order of 25.07.2026 were set aside; the members were to be reinstated forthwith and the authority to pass fresh orders after following Section 32(1) and (2).
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects elected co-operative bodies from summary removal on the basis of allegations alone.
- It clarifies the narrow scope of the “not reasonably practicable” exception in Section 32(3).
- The dispute drew public attention because of the allegations about ghee supply to Sabarimala, which remain open to inquiry under the proper procedure.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Co-operative Society Members
- Before supersession, the committee is entitled to state its objections under Section 32(1), and the specified bodies must be consulted under Section 32(2).
- Cooperation with an inquiry and the availability of records with the authorities weigh against any claim of a tampering risk.
- Reinstatement does not end the matter; the authority may still proceed afresh following the statutory procedure.
For Counsel
- Rely on Rajeevan T.V. v. K.A. Sukumaran and State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach when challenging a supersession made without notice.
- Test the factual basis for invoking Section 32(3) against what the Section 66 report itself shows.
- Seek reinstatement as consequential relief where the supersession order is set aside.
Key Takeaways
- Supersession of an elected committee is an exception, not the rule.
- Section 32(3) is construed strictly; apprehension of tampering must have a real basis.
- Supersession order of 25.07.2026 set aside; members reinstated forthwith.
- The authority may decide afresh after notice and consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the High Court decide the Sabarimala ghee allegations?
No. The judgment does not examine the merits of the allegations. It held only that the statutory procedure under Section 32(1) and (2) could not be bypassed, and directed the authority to follow it and pass fresh orders after hearing the members.
What is Section 32(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act?
It allows the authority to supersede a committee without giving it an opportunity of objection and without consulting the specified bodies, where doing so is not reasonably practicable. The Court held it must be construed strictly.
What happens to the Administrator?
The Court directed that the appellants be reinstated forthwith as members of the Managing Committee in place of the Administrator appointed after the supersession.
Conclusion
The judgment does not clear or condemn anyone on the Sabarimala ghee allegations. It insists instead that a statutory body may remove an elected committee only after following the procedure the Act prescribes, and that the emergency route in Section 32(3) is not available on a presumption of misconduct.
Practical takeaway: Allegations, however serious, do not by themselves justify superseding an elected co-operative committee without notice; the authority must show why notice and consultation were truly not practicable.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com