The President vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others

P.N. Ravindran, J.—The Petitioner is the President of the Neduvathoor Panchayat Service Co-operative Bank Limited. He has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 letter dated 31.12.2010 sent by the second Respondent to him with copy to the Secretary of the Bank informing them that if no reply is received to Ext.P1 report in relation to the irregularities noticed in the report within two weeks, steps will be taken against the members of the Managing Committee and the employees of the bank. In this writ petition the Petitioner seeks a direction to the second Respondent to consider Ext.P3 objections to Ext.P1 report and pass fresh orders in the matter. The main contention raised in the writ petition is that upon receipt of Ext.P1 enquiry report, Ext.P3 reply dated 30.7.2010 was personally handed over to the second Respondent, but the second Respondent, without even perusing Ext.P3, issued Ext.P4 communication.

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted on instruction that the original of Ext.P3 has not been received by the second Respondent. Referring to the writ petition the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Petitioner has no case that the original of Ext.P3 was sent by registered post or by local delivery and that the case set out in the writ petition is that the original of Ext.P3 was personally handed over to the second Respondent, which statement, according to the learned Government Pleader, cannot be accepted in view of the seriousness of the findings in Ext.P1 report.

The case set out by the Petitioner in the writ petition isthat Ext.P3 reply was submitted upon receipt of Ext.P1 enquiryreport and that it was personally handed over to the secondRespondent. The Petitioner is the President of a co-operativesociety. Ext.P1 notices serious irregularities in the functioning ofthe society. A copy of Ext.P1 report was forwarded to theSecretary of the society along with Ext.P2 letter by registeredpost. The Secretary of the society having received the report byregistered post, one would have expected the reply also to besent by registered post. Apart from the ipse dixit of the Petitionerthat the original of Ext.P3 was personally handed over to thesecond Respondent there is nothing on record to substantiate the said plea. In the ordinary course of human conduct one would have expected the Petitioner and the Secretary of the society to send the original of Ext.P3 by registered post having regard to the seriousness of the findings in Ext.P1 enquiry report. I am therefore not satisfied that the Petitioner has established his assertion that on behalf of the managing committee of the society Ext.P3 reply was submitted to the second Respondent. In such circumstances I find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P4.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that if within one week from today the Petitioner submits a reply with reference to the findings in Ext.P1 report the second Respondent shall consider the same while taking a final decision in the matter.