Kerala HC Reinstates Elected Dairy Co-op Committee, Finding Members’ Cooperation With Inquiry Did Not Justify Skipping Notice And Consultation

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Registrar was justified in dispensing with the opportunity to the Committee to state its objections under Section 32(1), by invoking the exception in Section 32(3).

The court held

The Court allowed both writ appeals, set aside the Single Judge’s judgment and the Director’s supersession order dated 25 July 2026, and directed the Director to follow the procedure under Sections 32(1) and 32(2), including affording the appellants a hearing, before passing any further orders.

It also directed

It also directed the appellants’ immediate reinstatement as members of the Managing Committee in place of the Administrator

01Facts

The appellants were members of the Managing Committee of the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union.

pp. 5–6, para 2

On 25 July 2026, the Director of Dairy Development, acting as the functional Registrar, superseded the Committee under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

pp. 5–6, paras 2–4

The order relied on a report concerning alleged irregularities, including the supply of ghee to Sabarimala, but was made without prior notice to the Committee or consultation with the relevant co-operative bodies.

pp. 5–6, paras 2–4

The Single Judge dismissed the appellants’ writ petitions.

pp. 5–6, paras 2–4

In the appeals, the appellants produced an inquiry report obtained through an RTI request, which showed that the inquiry officer had received relevant materials during the investigation

pp. 5–6, paras 2–4 · p. 11, para 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Registrar was justified in dispensing with the opportunity to the Committee to state its objections under Section 32(1), by invoking the exception in Section 32(3).

p. 6, para 3 · pp. 9–11, paras 7–8

ii.2. Whether the Registrar could dispense with consultation with the financing bank and the relevant co-operative union under Section 32(2), in the circumstances of these cases.

p. 6, para 3 · pp. 9–11, paras 7–8

03Law Applied

Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 permits removal of a society’s committee on specified grounds, but requires that the committee be given an opportunity to state its objections.

pp. 7–9, paras 6–7

Section 32(2) requires the Registrar to consult the financing bank and the relevant circle or State Co-operative Union before passing an order of supersession.

pp. 7–9, paras 6–7

Section 32(3) permits dispensing with those requirements only where the Registrar forms the opinion that compliance is not reasonably practicable; as an exception, it must be construed strictly.

pp. 7–9, paras 6–7

In Rajeevan T.V. v. K.A. Sukumaran, [2013 (3) KHC 46], the Court held that supersession of an elected committee is exceptional and that dispensing with notice or consultation requires cogent reasons.

pp. 7–9, paras 6–7

The Court also relied on State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach, [2013 KHC 4422], for the rule that the Registrar’s opinion must be independently formed, bona fide, and based on objective criteria connected to the decision

pp. 7–9, paras 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 Section 32Section 66

04Reasoning

The inquiry report dated 16 July 2026 relied on materials made available to the inquiry officer by the Union’s Managing Director.

pp. 9–11, paras 7–8

The appellants’ cooperation in providing those materials undermined the asserted basis for presuming that they might tamper with or suppress evidence.

pp. 9–11, paras 7–8

The authorities already possessed the material supporting the allegations, while any material in the Committee’s custody could be relevant to its defence and could not properly be withheld from it.

pp. 9–11, paras 7–8

The Court therefore found no exceptional circumstances making notice and consultation not reasonably practicable, and held that the Registrar had unjustifiably invoked Section 32(3)

pp. 9–11, paras 7–8