The petitioner has filed this contempt case seeking initiation of action against the respondent for violation of the direction contained in Annexure-1 interim order dated 3.9.2014 in W.P.(C) No.23400 of 2014. As per the interim order, a direction had been issued to the respondent to appoint an Administrative Committee comprising of the members of the committee that was in office, under section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter the Act for short) to be in administration of the Society on the expiry of the term of office of the elected Managing Committee. The said order has been made conditional by providing that, there should not be any statutory proceedings pending against the members of the Administrative Committee. Thereafter, by Annexure-A2 dated 10.9.2014, the respondent has appointed a Unit Inspector attached to the office of the Assistant Engineer (General) as the Administrator to manage the affairs of the society. 2. According to Adv.P.C.Sasidharan, who appears for the petitioner, Annexure-A2 constitutes wilful disobedience of the direction of this Court, for the reason that, no statutory proceedings are pending against the members of the Managing Committee as stipulated by the interim order of this Court. Inasmuch as no statutory proceedings are pending against the members of the Managing Committee, Annexure-A2 is in total violation of the direction contained in Annexure-1 order. It is also contended that the proceedings initiated under section 66 of the Act is only an enquiry into the affairs of the society and is not against any of the members of the Managing Committee. For the above reason, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be said that any statutory proceedings are pending against the members of the Managing Committee. Therefore, appointment of an Administrator is nothing but disobedience of the direction of this Court. Any action against the members of the Managing Committee could be initiated only after giving an opportunity to the Managing Committee to rectify the defects, if any, that may be pointed out at the enquiry conducted. Action to be initiated against the members are contained in sections 68 and 32 of the Act and in no other provision.
3. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent producing Annexures R1(a) to R1(c) documents. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the order of this Court was clear that, an Administrative Committee comprising of the elected members of the Managing Committee was to be appointed only in a situation where no statutory proceedings were pending against the members. In the present case, long before the issue of the said interim order, as per Ext.R1(a) an enquiry under section 66 of the Act had been ordered. Ext.R1(b) is the statement of the petitioner that was recorded by the Enquiry Officer on 8.7.2014. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has submitted Ext.R1(c) interim report on 30.7.2014 finding that the members were guilty of culpable conduct in the management of the society. It was only long thereafter that the interim order, Annexure-A1, was passed. The petitioner and the other members of the Managing Committee were aware of the pendency of the proceedings and that accusations were leveled against them. It was in view of the pendency of the said proceedings that an Administrator has appointed, in strict compliance with the direction contained in Annexure-A1 order. Therefore according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the respondent is not guilty of any contempt of court.
4. Heard. It is no doubt true that the enquiry under section 66 is into the affairs of the society. In the present case, the enquiry was ordered as per Ext.R1(a) on 4.4.2014 and the interim report Ext.R1(c) was submitted on 30.7.2014. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the said proceedings have been initiated with the object of overreaching the direction contained in Annexure-A1. What has been ordered in Annexure-A1 reads as follows:
There shall therefore be an interim direction to the second respondent to appoint an Administrative Committee, comprising of the members of the Committee that is in office at present, under Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, to be in administration of the society on the expiry of the term of the elected Managing Committee on 13.9.2014, provided there are no statutory proceedings pending against the members of the said Administrative Committee.
5. The order makes it clear that, that the Administrative Committee was to be appointed, provided there were no statutory proceedings pending against the members of the Administrative Committee. A perusal of Ext.R1(c) shows that, it has been found therein that the Managing Committee had failed in exercising appropriate controls to ensure that the financial discrepancies detected therein did not take place. Therefore, the primary conclusion in Ext.R1(c) is that, the members of the Managing Committee were responsible for the resultant situation. On the basis of the above, it has to be held that, the enquiry that is in progress, is directed against the conduct of the members of the Managing Committee in managing the affairs of the society. It cannot therefore be said that, the respondent has acted in willful violation of the direction of this Court in appointing an Administrative Committee. The learned Special Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court as well a Single Bench where an Administrative Committee was not appointed in preference to an Administrator. I have already found that the action of the respondent is justified in view of the pendency of Ext.R1(a) proceedings.
For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to proceed further in this matter. The contempt of court case is therefore closed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.