Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the persons seeking impleadment, as also the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Department of Co-operation in the State Government.
2. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the matter, we think that we should dissuade ourselves from writing elaborately on the contents of Ext.P8, which is an order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, exercising powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in terms of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. That order was appealed against by the persons aggrieved, to the Government. That is a statutory appeal in terms of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. We have W.A.No.540/13 2 considered the contents of the appellate order issued by the Government, which is Ext.P23. What is stated in the penultimate paragraph, which alone reflects the independent statements of the appellate authority, cannot be termed as reflecting the consideration of an appeal by the appellate authority by application of mind to the entire facts and law. It does not reflect that the contentions of the appellants before the Government were appropriately considered. May be, it is a case where the appellants could not substantiate their innocence from facts and figures as noted by the appellate authority. But whatever is the finding, that has to be reflected in the order on the basis of the facts and materials available in the file. The superfluous statements contained in the penultimate paragraph of Ext.P23 do not inspire confidence to sustain that statutory appellate order. In that view of the matter, we think that it was not necessary for the learned single Judge to have considered certain aspects. We see that even at the hands of the learned single Judge, the predominant consideration was only as to the violation of RBI directions, though no mis-appropriation of funds, as such, was noticed. This is an abundantly fit case where the judgment of the W.A.No.540/13 3 learned single Judge has to be vacated, paving way to Ext.P23 being quashed and the statutory appeal before the Government being considered de novo by that authority after giving notice extending opportunity of hearing to the necessary parties. The appellate authority will have to consider all contentions of all necessary parties to that appeal.
In the result, the impugned judgment is vacated and Ext.P23 is quashed.
3. The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P11 appeal de novo, in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties. All contentions of all parties concerned will be addressed by the authority concerned. Appeal ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG