The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P3, P9 and P11 orders. Ext.P3 is admittedly an order passed under section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, superseding the Managing Committee elected to office and continuing thereon. An appeal was filed from the order under section 32 before the Government under section 83(1)(j) which was rejected by Ext.P11. Subsequent to the rejection, an election was notified on the strength of the supersession order. This Court had, in the above writ petition, stayed the election considering the fact that the term of the Managing Committee would expire only on 13.12.2015.
2. Though very many contentions are raised against the order of supersession what assumes significance is the lack of consultation as provided under section 32. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Nagayach [2013 (2) KLT 733] places the position beyond any doubt that before issuing an order of W.P.(C)No.28972 of 2013 2 supersession, necessarily the consultation provided under the provision has to be carried out with the financing bank or the Circle Co-operative Union. Ext.P3 does not disclose any such consultation and hence the same is set aside. It is made clear that this Court has set aside the order only on the aforesaid ground. The department would have reserved its liberty to proceed afresh, if found necessary, but after issuing a proper notice to the Committee. It is also stated that an Administrator has been appointed, who is in charge now. The Administrator shall hand over charge to the Managing Committee, which was validly elected to office and the second respondent shall ensure that the Managing Committee resumes office within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. In view of the aforesaid directions, the notification for election would have absolutely no effect.
The writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE vpv