Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. The petitioners are the elected members of the Board of Directors of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Trivandrum. It is an apex Bank. There are 44 primary Co-operative Agricultural Banks as its members. The present Board of Directors was elected in the election held on 2.3.1996 for a period of three years. The Board of Directors consisted of 14 elected Directors, 5 Government nominees, 2 nominated members as per S.28A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the act). The Additional Secretary to Government and the Director of Agriculture and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies were ex-officio members of the Board of Directors. The Managing Director of the Bank who was appointed by the Government was also an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors. Of the 14 elected Directors, 12 of them were Directors of the previous Board also. 2. First respondent, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued notice dated 22.10.1996 to 12 Directors of the Board, who were Directors of the previous Board also. The notice is produced as" Ext. P2. The notice is purported to be issued under S.32(1) of the Act. The notice is as follows: The previous Board of Directors on 9.2.1995 by its resolution No. 23 resolved to approve the rank list relating to the appointment of Assistants in the Bank. Accordingly, appointments were made for the said posts. 3. Serious complaints were received by the Registrar on irregularies and manipulations in the selection process. The Registrar conducted an enquiry into the matter, which revealed serious violation of statutory provisions under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, Bye-laws and Circular instructions of the Registrar. Hence, the Registrar rescinded resolution dated 9.2.1995. Further the Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries) Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') Trivandrum had also found that the Selection Committee consisting of the Board of Directors were prima facie guilty of corruption. The complaint before the Commission were filed against the President, Vice President, Managing Director and Secretary. The Commission found prima facia case of corruption against the President, Vice President and the Managing Director and a detailed enquiry was ordered. The complaint before the Commission were filed against the President, Vice President, Managing Director and Secretary. The Commission found prima facia case of corruption against the President, Vice President and the Managing Director and a detailed enquiry was ordered. According to the Registrar, there was a clear finding that the President, Vice President and the Managing Director were prima facie guilty of corruption, as envisaged under S.3(c) and (d) of the Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, The Registrar further stated that it was clear from the definite finding that the Managing Committee Members who were responsible for selection and appointment were prima facie guilty of corruption. The Managing Committee had initiated all proceedings relating to selection and appointment. Earlier, the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies conducted an enquiry regarding the allegations of corruption and illegal appointments and reported on 24.3.1995 that the Committee Members were guilty of violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the instructions of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It was also reported that the appointments were effected against the interest of the Society. Hence, resolution No. 23 of the Board of Directors was found to be void. Since now the Commission had also found that the President, Vice President and the Managing Director were prima facie guilty of corruption, it followed that all the members who were in the Committee as on 9.2.1995 were also prima facie guilty of corruption. Hence, according to the Registrar, he was satisfied that the Committee was persistently negligent in the performance of duties imposed on it by the Act, Rules and Bye-laws, which were prejudicial to the interest of the Society and that he was satisfied that there was corruption at large in the appointment of the employees to the Society. Notice further stated that the addressee was also a member of the then Board of Directors of the Bank which took the resolution. Notice concluded as follows: "In the circumstances you are hereby required to show cause as to why action shall not be taken against you and the Bank under S.32(i) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969". 4. To Ext. P2 notice, the 12 Directors to whom the notice was addressed, Ext. P3 reply was given. The main contentions taken in the reply were as follows: The notice issued proposing action under S.32(1) was not legally sustainable. 4. To Ext. P2 notice, the 12 Directors to whom the notice was addressed, Ext. P3 reply was given. The main contentions taken in the reply were as follows: The notice issued proposing action under S.32(1) was not legally sustainable. The present Managing Committee of the Bank was elected in the election held on 2.3.1996, on the expiry of the term of the previous Committee. The previous Committee which had completed its lull term was no longer in office. The action proposed on the whole did not refer to any of the actions of the present Managing Committee. S.32 of the Act did not warrant action against the existing Managing Committee on the basis of the actions of the previous Managing Committee, When a Committee had gone out of office after completion of their term, it had no legal existence as a Committee so as to attract any action under S.32 of the Act. In the light of these facts, the proposed action against the men members and the then Bank (as described in the notice) was not legally maintainable. 5. Regarding the reliance on the finding of the Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Commission, the reply was as follows: The complaint was filed against the then President, Vice President, Managing Director and the Secretary. The Commission's finding was only of a prima facie nature which was not a conclusive one. The Commission itself had made i! clear in the order that the presumption arrived at can be rebutted by giving concrete evidence in the second stage of the detailed enquiry. As the detailed enquiry was yet to commence and the respondents in the complaint could rebut the presumptions, it was premature to initiate an action under S.32(1) of the Act based on the prima facie finding of the Commission. The action proposed under S.32(1) of the Act was thus pre judging the issue pending before the Commission. The effect of the order of the Commission was only to provide for a detailed investigation by the Commission and nothing more. 6. Regarding the enquiry conducted by the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the reply proceeded as follows: The said enquiry was conducted hastily and without affording sufficient opportunity to the Bank for placing the entire materials. Many of the findings rendered in the order were not correct. 6. Regarding the enquiry conducted by the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the reply proceeded as follows: The said enquiry was conducted hastily and without affording sufficient opportunity to the Bank for placing the entire materials. Many of the findings rendered in the order were not correct. Affected parties were also not heard before rescinding the resolution dated 9.2.1995. The order was challenged in appeal under S.83 of the Act. The appeal was allowed and the order dated 24.3.1995 of the Registrar was quashed. Hence, the proceedings dated 24.3.1995 of the Registrar rescinding the resolution dated 9.2.1995 of the Bank was no longer in force. No reliance could therefore, he placed on it. 7. Regarding the allegations in the notice that the Committee was persistently negligent in the performance of its duties, the reply stated as follows: Not a single instance of any persistent negligence in the performance of the Committee was pointed out, The Committee was functioning well. There had not been any negligence in the performance of the duties imposed by the Act, Rules or bye-laws by the Committee. The satisfaction arrived at was totally arbitrary. There was total non-application of mind to the circumstances required for an action under S.32(1) of the Act. The observation that there was corruption at large in the appointment of employees to the Society was also without any basis. The reply then referred to the action proposed to be taken with reference to the membership of the 'then committee'. S.32(1) of the Act did not envisage action individually against a person for being a member of a previous Managing Committee. The existing Committee could not be superseded on any such basis. The action could not be based on a past event which did not call for any such action, against the then Committee before the expiry of its period. Reply further stated that the proposed action was only due to political pressure. 8. After considering Ext. P3 reply, the Registrar passed Ext. P4 order. The Registrar removed the 12 Directors of the Board of Directors to whom notice was issued. Thereafter, it was found that the remaining Directors of the Board of Directors could not form the quorum. Hence, the Registrar superseded the Committee and appointed the Secretary to Government, co-operation Department as Administrator to manage the affairs of the Bank. It is against Ext. Thereafter, it was found that the remaining Directors of the Board of Directors could not form the quorum. Hence, the Registrar superseded the Committee and appointed the Secretary to Government, co-operation Department as Administrator to manage the affairs of the Bank. It is against Ext. P4 order that the present Writ Petition is filed. 9. No counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that there was no dispute regarding the facts and hence, a counter affidavit was not necessary. We heard senior counsel Sri. T.P. Kelu Nambiar appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Advocate General on behalf of the Registrar and also the learned counsel Shri. Alan Papal on behalf of the third respondent. 10. Sri. T.P. Kelu Nambiar submitted that the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction. According to him, Ext. P4 order was a colourable exercise of the power vested in the Registrar under S.32 of the Act. He submitted that the power under S.3, of the Act could not be utilised for removing individual members of the Managing Committee. The power under S.32 of the Act could be exercised only to remove the Managing Committee as a whole. If individual members are to be removed, that power had to be exercised by resorting to other provisions under the Act and the Rules. He further submitted that the present Managing Committee could not be superseded for the actions of a past Managing Committee. Further he attacked the order of the Registrar for relying on the finding of the Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Commission as well as the proceedings of the Joint Registrar dated 24.3.1995. 11. The learned Advocate General submitted that there were serious complaints of corruption and irregularities in the appointments of Assistants to the Bank by the members of the previous Board of Directors. The Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Commission prima facie found that the entire members of the previous Managing Committee, who were involved in the selection and appointments of Assistants to the Bank, were guilty of corruption. Hence, according to him, such members, who were guilty of corruption, should not be allowed to manage the affairs of the Bank. The Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Commission prima facie found that the entire members of the previous Managing Committee, who were involved in the selection and appointments of Assistants to the Bank, were guilty of corruption. Hence, according to him, such members, who were guilty of corruption, should not be allowed to manage the affairs of the Bank. Further, he submitted that there was nothing wrong in the Registrar exercising the power under S.32 of the Act to remove such members. 12. The question for consideration is whether Ext. P4 order passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is legal and valid. Ext. P4 order is passed in exercise of the power vested with the Registrar under S.32(1) of the Act. In paragraph 14 of the Ext. P4 order, it is stated thus: "I, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred on me under S.32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 do hereby remove the following 11 directors of the said Bank sarvasree G. Radhakrishnan Nair, John Mathai, K. Sivadasan Nair, M. Aliyar, Jacob Stephan, K.K. Mathew, Joseph Manjali, A.C.S. Warrier, Kadameri Balakrishnan, C.P. Moosakutty and K.V. Narayanan, with immediate effect, resulting in 11 elected members ceasing to be members of the Board of Directors". Thereafter, in paragraph 15, the Registrar stated thus: "I am convinced that the remaining members of the existing Board cannot constitute the required quorum and in order to avoid administrative stalemate, I hereby remove the entire committee under S.32(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and in exercise of powers conferred on me under S.32(1)(b) of the said Act do hereby appoint the Secretary to Government, Co-operation Department, Government of Kerala, as Administrator to manage the affairs of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Thiruvananthapuram for a period of one year from the date of taking over charge by him". Thus, the Committee was removed on the ground that it could not function after the removal of 11 members who formed part of the same. The question for consideration is whether such a procedure adopted by the Registrar in superseding the elected Committee is valid. S.32(1) of the Act states thus: "32. Thus, the Committee was removed on the ground that it could not function after the removal of 11 members who formed part of the same. The question for consideration is whether such a procedure adopted by the Registrar in superseding the elected Committee is valid. S.32(1) of the Act states thus: "32. Supersession of Committee:- (1) If the Registrar is satisfied that the committee of any society persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or bye-laws or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interests of the society or wilfully disobeys or wilfully tails to comply with any lawful order or direction issued under the Act or there les, the Registrar may, after giving the committee an opportunity to state its objections, if any, by order in writing remove the committee and (a) appoint a new committee consisting of not more than three members of the society in its place; or (b) appointed one or more administrator or administrators who need not be a member or members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order". Thus, the power under S.32 of the Act can he exercised by the Registrar to remove a committee if it persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interests of the society or wilfully disobeys or wilfully fails to comply with any lawful order or direction issued under this Act. 13. It can be seen from Ext. P2 notice as well as Ext. P4 order of the Registrar that none of the conditions mentioned in S.32 of the Act was relied upon to supersede or remove the present Committee in office. What has been done by the Registrar is that 11 members out of the present Board of Directors were removed by him and then the Registrar removed the Committee on the ground that the remaining members cannot form sufficient quorum for the Managing Committee. Thus, the Registrar had exercised his power under S.32(1) of the Act to remove 11 members from the Managing Committee of the Bank and thereafter, the entire committee was superseded. Thus, the Registrar had exercised his power under S.32(1) of the Act to remove 11 members from the Managing Committee of the Bank and thereafter, the entire committee was superseded. Therefore, the question is whether the Registrar has got power to remove the individual members under S.32 of the Act. The heading of the Section itself is supersession of Committee. Further the body of the Section says that the Registrar may by order in writing remove the committee and appoint a new committee or an arbitrator to manage the affairs of the Society. Sub-s.(3) of S.32 of the Act says that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s.(1) or sub-s.(2) it shall not be necessary to give an opportunity to the committee to state its objections and to consult the Union and financing banks, in cases where the Registrar is of the opinion that it is not reasonably practicable to do so. Thus, a plain reading of S.32 of the Act shows that the power is given to the Registrar under S.32 to remove the entire body of Committee as a whole. 14. The Committee has been given certain rights and duties under the Act and the Rules. It is only when the Committee makes a default or neglect in the performance of such duties or when the Committee commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the Society or disobeys, wilfully any direction issued under the Act or Rules that supersession of the Committee can be ordered. The question has arisen in certain cases where a notice regarding supersession of the committee is to be issued to all the members of the Committee or is it enough that the notice is issued to the President of the Committee on behalf of the Committee. Considering this question, a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Raghavan v. Joint Registrar -1996 (2) KLT 671- held as follows: "On going by the Section there is no provision to give separate notice to each member of the Board of Directors. Notice is to be given to the committee and i t is the committee which has to raise its objections, if any, against the proposed supersession. Notice is to be given to the committee and i t is the committee which has to raise its objections, if any, against the proposed supersession. Normally the President will bring it to the notice of the other members of the Committee that he had received a notice from the first respondent under S.32(1) of the Act and it is for the Committee to give suitable reply or objections to the proposed supersession". Thus, the power under S.32 of the Act has to be exercised only with regard to the removal of the Committee. S.32 of the Act does not contain the provision for removal of members. When the Committee is removed, automatically the members are removed. 15. So far as the removal of individual members are concerned, R.44 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules is the relevant Rule. It is as follows: "44. Disqualification of membership of Committee:- (1) no member of the Society shall be eligible for being elected, or appointed as a member of the committee of the society under S.28 if he: - (a) is disqualified under S.28; or (b) is a near relative of a paid employee of the society; or (c) (i) is in default to the society or to any other society in respect of any loan or loans taken by. him or loan in which he has stood surety, for such period, as is prescribed in the bye-laws of the society concerned or in any case for a period exceeding three months or is a defaulter to the society or to any other society; or (ii) has been sentenced for any offence other than an offence of a political character or an offence not involving moral delinquency such sentence not having been reversed or offence pardoned and a period of three years has not elapsed from the date of expiration of the sentence; or (d) is interested directly or indirectly in any contract made with the society or in any sale or purchase made by the society privately or in any auction or in any transaction of the society other than investment and borrowing involving financial interest, if the contractor transaction is subsisting or if the contract, sale, purchase or transaction be not completed; or (e) is employed otherwise than in an honorary capacity as legal adviser or as legal practitioner on behalf of the society or against the society which is the member of the former society; or (1) is a paid employee of the society or of any other society; Provided that the Registrar may by general or special order exempt any society or any person from the operation of this clause for such period to be specified by him in the order of exemption; Provided further that this clause shall not apply in the case of an Employee's Co-operative Society. (g) is. of unsound mind, a deaf, mute or blind person or a leper; or is a minor or a nominal, or an associate member; Provided that the disqualification of leprosy shall not apply to the members of Committees of Societies formed for the rehabilitation of lepers; or (h) is an application to be adjudicated a bankrupt or an in solvent or an uncertified bankrupt or an undischarged insolvent; or (i) is carrying the same business as is being carried on by the society; or 0) is disqualified under any other provisions in the bye-laws of the society; or : (k) was a member of the committee which has been superseded and a period of one year has not elapsed from the date of supersession; or (1) has been surcharged under S.68. (2) (m) xxx xxx xxx (3) A member of the committee shall cease to hold his office as such, if he - (4) (a) becomes disqualified under sub-r.(1), provided that where a member ceases to hold his office as such by reason of having been sentenced for any offence, he shall be restored to office for such portion of the period for which he was elected or appointed as may remain unexpired at the date of such restoration, if and when the sentence is annulled on appeal or revision and any person elected or appointed in the vacancy in the interim period shall on such restoration vacate office; Provided further that the disqualification under sub-clause(i) of clause (c) of sub-r.(1) shall be deemed to be accrued only after expiry of a period of one month from the date of receipt by the member concerned of a notice from the society demanding him to clear off the defaulted amount specified therein and he fails to remit or cause to remit the amount within the said period; or (b) cease to be a member of the society; Provided that this clause shall not apply to a person nominated by the Government or any other authority specified in this behalf by the Government under sub-s.(1) of S.31 of the Act or by Government or Registrar under sub-s.(1) of S.28 of the Act. (c) is subsequently seen to be disqualified under sub-r.(1) on the date of election itself. Provided that the disqualification under sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-r.(1) shall be deemed to be accrued only after the expiry of a period of one month from the date of receipt by the member concerned of a notice from the society demanding him to clear off the defaulted amount specified therein and he fails to remit or cause to remit the amount within the said period. (3) If any person is or becomes disqualified to be a member of the committee, the Registrar may on his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of the society or by its Financing Bank by an order in writing declare that he shall cease to be a member of the committee of the society concerned from the date of such disqualification. Before passing an order, the Registrar shall give such person an opportunity to state his objections, if any, against the proposed action and if the person wishes to be heard he shall be given an opportunity to be heard". R.44(1) of the Rules deals with the disqualification of membership of a Committee. R.44(2) deals with a to when a member of the Committee shall cease to hold his office as such and R.44(3) of the Rules gives the power to the Registrar to declare that a member of the Committee had ceased to. be a member. 16. Barring of the provision under R.44, there is no other provision dealing with the disqualification or removal of the members of the Managing Committee. Learned Advocate General then contended that it would be giving a licence to the members of the Managing Committee to involve in corruption and continue with immunity as members of the Managing Committee. It may be so. But in so far as there is no provision except R.44 with regard to the removal of the members of the Managing Committee, that power cannot be exercised by adopting an indirect method in the garb of exercising the power under S.32 of the Act. If there is any lacuna, it is for the appropriate authorities to look into the same. 17. In the present case, we find that the Registrar exercised his power under S.32 of the Act to remove certain members from the Managing Committee. This is not valid in law. The Committee was superseded on the ground that after the removal of 11 members, the remaining members could not form the quorum. Hence, we hold that the removal of 11 members as well as the removal of the Committee was not justified in law. 18. Even on facts, we find that the order passed by the Registrar cannot be sustained. The allegation against the 11 members of the Committee was that they were parties to the selection of Assistants in the Bank. There were complaints that the selection was made against the provisions of the Act and the Rules and that the appointments were made on extraneous consideration. The Addl. Registrar by his report dated 24.3.1995 informed the Registrar that the selections were made against the provisions of law and on extraneous consideration. On the basis of this report, the Registrar quashed the resolution appointing the selected persons. The Addl. Registrar by his report dated 24.3.1995 informed the Registrar that the selections were made against the provisions of law and on extraneous consideration. On the basis of this report, the Registrar quashed the resolution appointing the selected persons. The other ground relied on by the Registrar was that there was a complaint filed against the President, Vice President, Managing Director and the Secretary before the Kerala'Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Commission with regard to the selection of Assistants to the Bank. The Commission made a prima facie enquiry and found that the aforesaid persons as well as the members of the then Committee were guilty of corruption. It was on the basis of these two items of evidence that the Registrar proceeded to conclude that the 11 members to whom notices were issued, were guilty of corruption and ordered their removal. It was true that acting on the report of the joint Registrar, the Registrar quashed the resolution. But the order of the Registrar was taken in appeal before the Government and the said order was set aside by the Government. The reasoning of the Registrar was that even though the appeal was allowed, in the order of the Government it was stated that it might be true that the members were guilty of corruption. When once the order was set aside, the Registrar could not rely on the same to find that the members were guilty of corruption. The entire body of Directors was not a party before the Commission. Only the President, Vice President, Managing Director and the Secretary were parties before the Commission. No doubt, the Commission prima facie found that the parties before them as well as the other members of the Managing Committee were guilty of corruption. The order of the Commission itself shows that it had not become final. In this context, it is relevant to quote the following observations of the Commission in Ext. 7 order: "It would appear prima facie that the respondents abused their position as public men and conspired together and along with others intending to show undue favour to their own men and caused injury to deserving candidates. The presumption is that they have done the act for deriving pecuniary advantage. Of course, these presumptions can be rebutted by giving concrete evidence, examining witnesses etc, in the second stage of detailed inquiry. The presumption is that they have done the act for deriving pecuniary advantage. Of course, these presumptions can be rebutted by giving concrete evidence, examining witnesses etc, in the second stage of detailed inquiry. In view of the fact that we find a prima facie case of corruption requiring detailed investigation, we have not dealt with in detail or entered any finding regarding the other allegations in the complaint which we will do at the second stage". 19. The second stage of the enquiry did not commence so far. The effect of Ext. P4 order is that the present Managing Committee is superseded for the faults of the previous Managing Committee. The power under S.32 of the Act can be invoked only if the existing Managing Committee is guilty. It may be that many of the members of the previous Managing Committee could have come back having been reelected and would be continuing as members of the existing Managing Committee. As already stated, what is to be adjudged is whether the existing committee is guilty of the conditions mentioned in S.32 of the Act and not whether some individual members of the Committee, were guilty of any act of corruption while they were members of the previous Committee. In the above view of the matter, we allow the Original Petition quashing Ext. P4 order.