Kerala High Court
M P Jackson vs The Reserve Bank Of India on 3 July, 2026
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
1
2026:KER:48097
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 3275 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
M P JACKSON
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O M C PAUL, MAMPILLY HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680125
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
SHRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
SMT.POOJA PANKAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE
BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION (C)
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
3 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TANA SOUTH,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680121
5 THE ADMINISTRATOR
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
2
2026:KER:48097
IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK, TANA SOUTH,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN - 680121
BY ADVS.
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV. RAJANI K.N. (SR.G.P.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
3
2026:KER:48097
CR
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2026
1. The Petitioner is the former President of Respondent No.4 –
Urban Co-operative Bank. The Petitioner has filed this Petition
challenging Ext.P5 order of the Respondent No.1/Reserve Bank
of India issued under Section 36AAA r/w Section 56 of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949, superseding the Board of
Directors of Respondent No.4. Other reliefs sought for in the
Writ Petition are to declare that the principles of natural justice
are to be read into the provisions of Section 36AAA r/w Section
56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and to direct the
Respondent No.1 to restore the elected Managing Committee
of Respondent No.4, forthwith.
2. The Respondent No.1 conducted an inspection on the operation
of the Respondent No.4/Bank and prepared Ext.P1 Inspection
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
4
2026:KER:48097
Report considering the financial position as on 31.03.2022.
Several irregularities in the operation of the Respondent No.4
were found in Ext.P1. The Respondent No.1, invoking its
powers under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act,
issued Ext.P3 All-Inclusive-Directions (AID) dated 29.07.2025
imposing certain regulatory restrictions in the operations of the
Respondent No.4 for a period of six months with effect from
30.07.2025. The Respondent No.4 submitted a Request dated
08.09.2025 to the Respondent No.1 seeking permission to sell
Non-Banking Assets (NBAs) of the Respondent No.4 to come
out of AID restrictions, which was replied to by the Respondent
No.1 as per Ext.P4 dated 24.09.2025 that AID restrictions do
not prohibit the sale of NBAs. The contention of the Petitioner is
that while the Respondent No.4 initiated action to sell the NBAs
to improve its financial position, the Respondent No.1 issued
Ext.P5 order of supersession removing the Board of Directors
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
5
2026:KER:48097
of Respondent No.4 and appointing an Administrator for the
Respondent No.4 for a period of one year from 07.10.2025 to
06.10.2026.
3. The Respondent No.1 filed Counter Affidavit dated 27.02.2026
opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition. Petitioner filed Reply
Affidavit dated 10.03.2026 answering the contentions raised in
the Counter Affidavit. The Respondent No.1 filed Additional
Counter Affidavit dated 29.05.2026 clarifying certain facts in
answer to the contentions raised in the Reply Affidavit.
4. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Arjun
Raghavan, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent
No.1, Smt. Sumathy Dandapani, instructed by Adv.Sri.Millu
Dandapani, and the learned Government Pleader for the
Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that Ext.P5
Order was totally unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
6
2026:KER:48097
the case. The Respondent No.4 had been conducting its
operation strictly in accordance with Ext.P3 AID. The financial
condition of the Respondent No.4 could have been improved by
the sale of NBAs, if a reasonable time was granted to the
Respondent No.4. Learned Counsel challenged Ext.P5 on three
specific grounds: (1) Ext.P5 Order was issued in violation of the
principles of natural justice, (2) Ext.P5 Order was passed
without consultation with the State Government as mandatorily
required under Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation Act,
and (3) Respondent No.1 has no authority to appoint
Administrator to replace the democratically elected Board of
Directors of the Respondent No.4 on 23.01.2024 for a period of
five years, which is answerable to the General Body of the
Respondent No.4.
6. First contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that
even though Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation Act
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
7
2026:KER:48097
does not expressly provide an opportunity of hearing, an order
of supersession is having consequence of loss of office and also
loss of reputation, and the same has to be termed as civil
consequence. It is well settled by the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that once it is found that there is civil
consequence arising out of a transaction, the order therein can
only be issued after hearing the affected party. The learned
Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India v. M. Hanumaiah and Others
[(2008) 1 SCC 770], Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Central-I and Another [(2008) 14 SCC 151], Brigadier Nalin
Kumar Bhatia v. Union of India and Others [(2020) 4 SCC 78], State Bank
of India and Others v. Rajesh Agarwal and Others [(2023) 6 SCC 1] and
the decision of this Court in Manoharan K. v. District Collector,
Kannur [2024 (4) KHC 606] in support of his contentions regarding
the violation of principles of natural justice.
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
8
2026:KER:48097
7. Second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is
that the Proviso to Section 36AAA(1) of the Banking Regulation
Act mandates consultation with the State Government
concerned, seeking its comments before passing an order
under Section 36AAA. The non-consultation of the State
Government vitiates Ext.P5 order passed by the Respondent
No.1. The consultation made by the Respondent No.1 with the
Respondent No.3/Registrar of Co-operative Societies could not
be equivalent to the consultation with the State Government.
Under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the State
Government is at a higher level than the Registrar of the Co-
operative Societies. Under Section 87 of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act, a power of revision is provided against
the orders of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is a
settled law that when the Statute provides for a thing to be done
in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
9
2026:KER:48097
alone and in no other manner. Learned Counsel cited the
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babu Verghese and
Others v. Bar Council of Kerala and Others [(1999) 3 SCC 422], Rohitash
Kumar and Others v. Om Prakash Sharma and Others [(2013) 11 SCC
451] and OPTO Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank and Others [(2021) 6
SCC 707] in support of this Contention. Learned Counsel further
cited the decisions of this Court in B. Sajeevan and Others v. The
Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and Others [2015 SCC OnLine
Ker 26475], Chaithanya Krishnan and Others v. The Joint Registrar of
Co-Operative Societies and Others [2022:KER:74409] and Sabu K.V. v.
Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others [ILR 2026 Kerala OnLine
52] dealing with the supersession of the Managing Committee
under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,
1969. In B. Sajeevan (supra) and Sabu K.V. (supra), this Court held
that the Order passed by the Registrar under Section 32(1) of
the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to supersede the
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
10
2026:KER:48097
Managing Committee without consultation of the Circle Co-
operative Union or the State Co-operative Union, as the case
may be, is unsustainable and ordered to restore the Managing
Committee forthwith.
8. The third contention of the Counsel for the Petitioner is that the
Managing Committee is elected democratically by the General
Body and it has to remain in power for a period of five years,
expiring on 24.01.2029, as provided under Section 28 of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The said democratic body
could not be replaced by an Administrator appointed under
Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation Act. It is the
Managing Committee alone which takes policy decisions
pertaining to the functioning of the Co-operative Society. The
Managing Committee is answerable to the General Body. If
Ext.P5 order passed by Respondent No.1 is allowed to stand, it
would be detrimental to the democratic principles embodied in
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
11
2026:KER:48097
the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Section 32 of the Kerala
Co-operative Societies Act provides for the supersession of the
Managing Committee on the Registrar being satisfied that the
Managing Committee has indulged in any of the illegal actions
mentioned in Section 32 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act. It is well settled that the power of supersession is
to be used sparingly by the authorities. There are enough
safeguards in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to correct
an erring Society. None of the authorities under the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act has initiated any action against the
Respondent No.4. Learned Counsel concluded his arguments
praying to set aside Ext.P5 order and to restore the elected
Managing Committee of the Respondent No.4 forthwith.
9. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1
contended that Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation Act
does not contemplate any personal hearing before passing an
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
12
2026:KER:48097
Order under the said Section. The learned Senior Counsel
invited my attention to Section 36AA of the Banking Regulation
Act which provides for the removal of managerial or other
persons from the office of a banking company. It provides for
granting a reasonable opportunity of making representation
against the proposed order. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has
purposefully omitted the opportunity of hearing in Section
36AAA and hence the opportunity of hearing could not be read
into Section 36AAA. The Bombay High Court considered the
question in Sandeep S. Ghandat and Others v. Reserve Bank of India
and Others [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3584] and it is held that the
principles of natural justice cannot be read into Section 36AAA.
The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are
clearly distinguishable. Learned Senior Counsel further
contended that the Respondent No.1 passed Ext.P5 Order after
consultation with the State Government which is mandated
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
13
2026:KER:48097
under the Proviso to Section 36AAA(1). The Respondent No.1
sought comments from the Respondent No.3/Registrar of Co-
operative Societies in the matter of the Respondent No.4 as per
Ext.R1(b) and the Respondent No.3 submitted Ext.R1(c)
comments to the Respondent No.1. The Registrar of Co-
operative Societies is the Principal Officer heading the
Department of Co-operation who supervises the functioning of
the Co-operative Societies throughout the State. He is the most
competent officer of the State Government for consultation with
respect to matters affecting the functioning of the Co-operative
Societies. The State Government has not raised any objection
against Ext.P5 order on the ground that the State Government
was not consulted before passing the Ext.P5 order. It is clear
from the First Proviso to Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act that in the case of Co-operative Society
carrying on the business of banking, the provisions of the
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
14
2026:KER:48097
Banking Regulation Act, 1949, shall also apply. Respondent
No.1 derives the power of supersession under the provisions of
the Banking Regulation Act. Hence, the Respondent No.1 is
competent to supersede the Managing Committee of the
Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.1 passed Ext.P5 Order
when it was found that Ext.P3 AID is insufficient to improve the
financial condition of the Respondent No.4/Bank. The
democratic setup of the Society is not a hurdle when sufficient
reasons are available to the Respondent No.1 to invoke its
power under Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation Act.
Ext.P5 order is already implemented and the Administrator
appointed by the Respondent No.1 has taken charge long back.
Ext.P5 order is dated 07.10.2025 and the Administrator
appointed by Respondent No.1 took charge of the Respondent
No.4 immediately and has been managing the Respondent
No.4 for the last several months. The Petitioner has filed this
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
15
2026:KER:48097
Writ Petition only on 27.01.2026. This Court was not inclined to
grant any interim order in favour of the Petitioner and hence the
Administrator has continued his management of the
Respondent No.4. The present administration is due to expire
on completion of one year on 06.10.2026. The reasons for
passing the Ext.P5 order of supersession are clearly stated in
the Ext.P5 order. There are well-supported reasons in Ext.P5
order. The learned Senior Counsel concluded his arguments
praying to dismiss the Writ Petition.
10. In the light of the arguments advanced before me, the following
questions arise for consideration in this case:
1. Whether an opportunity of hearing is to be given before passing an
Order of supersession under Section 36AAA of the Banking
Regulation Act?
2. Whether consultation with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is
sufficient compliance for consultation with the State Government as
WP(C) No.3275 of 202616
2026:KER:48097
mandated under the Proviso to Section 36AAA(1) of the Banking
Regulation Act?
3. Is it permissible for the Respondent No.1 to supersede the Managing
Committee elected by the General Body of the Respondent No.4
without recourse to the provisions under the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder?
Question No.1:
11. There could not be any quarrel with respect to the proposition
of law that when the proceedings result in civil consequences to
the affected party, the principles natural justice have to be
followed.
12. In M. Hanumaiah (supra), the question considered was whether
the principles of natural justice have any application at the stage
when the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, on being so
required in writing by the Reserve Bank of India, passes an
order removing the Committee of Management of a Co-
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
17
2026:KER:48097
operative Bank and appointing an Administrator to manage its
affairs for such period, as may be specified by the Reserve Bank
of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the question in
the negative and held and found that on receipt of a requisition
in writing from the Reserve Bank of India, the Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, is statutorily bound to issue the order of
supersession of the Committee of Management of the Co-
operative Bank and that at that stage the affected Bank / its
Managing Committee has no right of hearing or to raise any
objections. In the decision in Brigadier Nalin Kumar Bhatia (supra)
cited by the Counsel for the Petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that there is no presumption that a decision taken by
persons occupying high posts is valid; that all power vested in
the authorities has to be discharged in accordance with the
principles laid down by the Constitution and the other Statutes
or Rules / Regulations governing the field; that the judicial
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
18
2026:KER:48097
scrutiny of a decision does not depend on the rank or position
held by the decision maker; and that the Court is concerned with
the legality and validity of the decision and the rank of the
decision maker does not make any difference. The decision in
Rajesh Agarwal (supra) is cited to substantiate the point that
administrative proceedings which entail significant civil
consequences must be read consistent with the principles of
natural justice to meet the requirement of Article 14; that where
possible, the rule of audi alteram partem ought to be read into
a statutory rule to render it compliant with the principles of
equality and non-arbitrariness envisaged under Article 14. The
decision in Sahara India (supra) is cited by the Counsel for the
Petitioner to substantiate the point that unless a statutory
provision either specifically or by necessary implication
excludes the application of principles of natural justice, the
requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
19
2026:KER:48097
before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of
a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil
consequences for the party affected; and that the principle will
hold good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a
statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial. It is
further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that no general rule
of universal application can be laid down as to the applicability
of the principle audi alteram partem, in addition to the language
of the provision; that there can be exceptions to the said
doctrine; that the question whether the principle has to be
applied or not is to be considered bearing in mind the express
language and the basic scheme of the provision conferring the
power, the nature of the power conferred and the purpose for
which the power is conferred and the final effect of the exercise
of that power; and that it is only upon a consideration of all these
matters that the question of application of the said principle can
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
20
2026:KER:48097
be properly determined. In Rohitash Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the Court, while interpreting statutory
provisions, cannot add words to a Statute, or read words into it
which are not part of it, especially when a literal reading of the
same produces an intelligible result; that the Statute is not to be
construed in light of certain notions that the legislature might
have had in mind, or what the legislature is expected to have
said, or what the legislature might have done, or what the duty
of the legislature to have said or done was; that the Courts have
to administer the law as they find it, and it is not permissible for
the Court to twist the clear language of the enactment in order
to avoid any real or imaginary hardship which such literal
interpretation may cause; and that under the garb of interpreting
the provision, the Court does not have the power to add or
subtract even a single word, as it would not amount to
interpretation, but legislation.
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
21
2026:KER:48097
13. Section 36AA of the Banking Regulation Act deals with the
removal of managerial and other persons from the office of the
banking company. Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation
Act deals with the supersession of Board of Directors of a Co-
operative Bank. On a bare comparison of the provisions under
Section 36AA and Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation
Act, it is clear that the Legislature in its wisdom has decided to
avoid the application of the principle of natural justice to the
proceedings under Section 36AAA. The Legislature has
incorporated the principle of natural justice into the language of
Section 36AA, whereas it has avoided the same in Section
36AAA. When the Legislature has decided to avoid the
application of the principle of natural justice to the proceedings
under Section 36AAA, it could not be read into the language of
the said provision. Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
22
2026:KER:48097
Act does not contemplate an opportunity of hearing before
passing an Order under the said Section.
14. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had occasion to
consider this question in Sandeep S. Ghandat (supra). It is apposite
to quote Paragraphs Nos.86 and 87 of the said decision:
“86. Section 36-AA, which immediately precedes Section 36-AAA, provides that
an order removing any Chairman, Director, Chief Executive Officer or other
officer or employee of a banking company under sub-section (1) of Section 36-
A shall not be made unless the Chairman, Director or Chief Executive Officer or
other officer or employee concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity
of making a representation to the Reserve Bank of India against the proposed
order. However, Section 36-AAA, which immediately follows Section 36-AA,
does not provide for any such opportunity of hearing before any order is passed
by the RBI. In our view, therefore, this clearly shows that the intention of the
Parliament is not to include the principles of natural justice in Section 36-AAA.
In other words, there is a clear mandate to the contrary in the statute. Looking
at it in another way it can also be said that the statute excludes by necessary
WP(C) No.3275 of 202623
2026:KER:48097
implication the principles of natural justice from Section 36-AAA. In our view, for
this reason the principles of natural justice cannot be read into Section 36-AAA.
87. Further, the judgment in Rajesh Agarwal (supra) provides that principles of
natural justice should not be read into a statute where importing them would
have the effect of paralysing the entire process. It is important to note that RBI
has to exercise the power under Section 36AAA when it is satisfied that in the
public interest or for preventing the affairs of a Co-operative Bank being
conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the depositors or of the
Co-operative Bank or for securing the proper management of the Co-operative
Bank it is necessary to do so. In our view, considering the circumstances in
which the power under Section 36-AAA has to be exercised, if a show-cause
notice or hearing is given, then it would lead to delay causing further
deterioration in the affairs of the Bank and further mismanagement thereby
further prejudicing the interests of the Bank and its depositors. This would have
the effect of defeating the purposes for which the said power is conferred on
the Reserve Bank in Section 36-AAA. In our view, for this reason also, the
principles of natural justice cannot be read into Section 36-AAA.”
WP(C) No.3275 of 202624
2026:KER:48097
15. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court in the above decision.
16. While passing a Supersession Order under Section 36AAA, the
Respondent No.1 should be satisfied that in the public interest
or for preventing the affairs of Co-operative Bank being
conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of depositors
or of the Co-operative Bank or for securing the proper
management of the Co-operative Bank, it is necessary to
supersede the Board of Directors of such Co-operative Bank
and the Order should contain reasons in writing. In the case on
hand, the Respondent No.1 conducted an enquiry on the
operation of the Respondent No.4 as per Ext.P1. The
Respondent No.1 issued Ext.P3 Order as a first step, issuing
certain regulatory restrictions to the operation of the
Respondent No.4. It is thereafter that the Respondent No.1
passed Ext.P5 order appointing Administrator superseding the
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
25
2026:KER:48097
Board of Directors of the Respondent No.4 for a period of one
year. Clear reasons are stated in Ext.P5 Order. Hence, I am of
the view that the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.4
including the Petitioner are not entitled to get an opportunity of
personal hearing before passing the Ext.P5 order. This question
is answered in the negative and in favour of the Respondent
No.1.
Question No.2
17. Proviso to Section 36AAA(1) of the Banking Regulation Act
provides that in the case of a Co-operative Bank registered with
the Registrar of Co-operative Societies of a State, the Reserve
Bank shall issue order under Section 36AAA in consultation with
the concerned State Government seeking its comments, if any,
within such period as the Reserve Bank specifies. Of course,
the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is a competent officer of
the State Government for consultation in a matter affecting the
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
26
2026:KER:48097
functioning of a Co-operative Society. But when the statute
specifically requires consultation with the State Government,
the consultation with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is
not sufficient. In Babu Verghese (supra) and OPTO Circuit India
Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that it is
the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing
a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be
done in that manner alone and in no other manner. The
Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot represent the State
Government in such a consultation process. The State
Government, represented by the Secretary of the Cooperation
Department, is the competent authority to be consulted before
passing Order under Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation
Act. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is an officer
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
27
2026:KER:48097
subordinate to the State Government in the hierarchy of
authorities provided in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
18. In State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Sanjay Nagayach and Others
[(2013) 7 SCC 25] cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with the legality of
an order passed by the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative
Societies, superseding the Board of Directors of a Co-operative
Bank without previous consultation with the Reserve Bank of
India, as provided under the Second Proviso to Section 53(1) of
the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh setting aside the
order of supersession on the ground of non-compliance of the
Second Proviso to Section 53(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960, holding that the consultation with
the Reserve Bank of India was not effective and meaningful.
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
28
2026:KER:48097
19. When the statute provides for consultation with the State
Government, the absence of any objection from the side of
State Government on the ground of non-consultation is
irrelevant.
20. When Proviso to Section 36AAA(1) provides for mandatory
consultation with the State Government, any order passed
without such consultation is to be held unsustainable. This
question is answered in the negative and in favour of the
Petitioner.
Question No.3
21. In the matter of supersession of the Managing Committee of a
Co-operative Bank, it is the Respondent No.1 which has more
expertise for its financial administration than the authorities
under the Co-operative Societies Act. For efficient performance
of the banking business of the Co-operative Banks, regular
monitoring by the Respondent No.1 is absolutely essential.
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
29
2026:KER:48097
Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act provides for
supersession of Committee of the Societies. The First Proviso
to Section 32(1) provides that in the case of Co-operative
Society carrying on the business of banking, the provisions of
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 shall also apply. In such case,
the Respondent No.1 has all the powers to initiate action under
the Banking Regulation Act against a Co-operative Bank, as in
the case of commercial Banks. Part V of the Banking Regulation
Act provides for the application of the Act to Co-operative
Banks. When there is a clear provision as Section 36AAA in the
Banking Regulation Act providing for supersession of the Board
of Directors of the Co-operative Banks, the Co-operative Bank
cannot claim any immunity from the proceedings initiated under
the Banking Regulation Act, on the ground that it has been
working under a democratic setup provided by the Kerala Co-
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
30
2026:KER:48097
operative Societies Act. Hence, this question is answered in the
affirmative and in favour of the Respondent No.1.
Conclusion
22. In view of the answer to Question No.2, in normal case, the
Petitioner is entitled to succeed in this Writ Petition. But Ext.P5
order is dated 07.10.2025 and the same has been implemented
by the Administrator taking charge of the management of the
Respondent No.4 immediately. The Petitioner, who was the
President of the Respondent No.4, has chosen to file this Writ
Petition only on 27.01.2026. The Petitioner could not secure any
interim order in his favour. Even after the filing of the Writ
Petition, the Administrator appointed by the Respondent No.1
continued the management of the Respondent No.4. Now the
Administrator appointed by Respondent No.1 has been
conducting the management of the Respondent No.4 for the last
nearly nine months. The Administrator is appointed for a period
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
31
2026:KER:48097
of one year which would expire on 06.10.2026. Hence, I am of
the view that it is not in the public interest and in the interest of
the Depositors and the Respondent No.4, to set aside Ext.P5
order at this distance of time. It is not desirable to restore the
Managing Committee back to the management of Respondent
No.4 at present. Hence, I am not inclined to exercise my
discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour
of the Petitioner.
23. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed repelling the
challenge against Ext.P5 order, and at the same time, directing
that if the Respondent No.1 wants to continue Ext.P5 order after
06.10.2026, the same shall be done only with the consultation
with Respondent No.2.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Shg/jma
WP(C) No.3275 of 2026
32
2026:KER:48097
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 3275 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED NIL
PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 16-01-2023 ALONG
WITH THE BOARD RESOLUTION
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTIVE NO.CO.DOS.SED.NO.D-
01/12-22- 350/2025-26 DATED 29-07-2025 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 24-09-2025 ALONG WITH THE MAIL COMMUNICATION
OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NUMBER
TYM.DOS.SED.NO.S791/12-04-158/2025-2026 DATED
07-10-2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) True copy the All Inclusive Direction of the RBI
dated 29.07.2025 bearing no Directive No.
CO.DOS.SED.No.D-01/12-22-350/2025-26
EXHIBIT R1(b) The true copy of the letter dated 08.08.2025
bearing no. TVM.DOS.SED.No.S648/12-04-158/2025-
2026
EXHIBIT R1(c) The true copy of the letter of the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies bearing no. No.
PA/RCS/5512025 dated 14.08.2025
