JUDGMENT Harish Tandon, J. - There has been a several round of litigations at the behest of the petitioners challenging the notice, order or even a show cause issued by the competent authority impinging upon the functioning and working of the Cooperative Bank. A little prelude to the genesis of the birth of the petitioner no. 1 is required to be highlighted though the points raised therein is hovering around the show cause issued against it by the respondent no. 2. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner no. 1 is a Cooperative Society registered under Andaman and Nicobar Islands Cooperative Societies Regulations, 1973 and the petitioner no. 1 is a Chairman of the said Cooperative Bank. The Reserve Bank of India granted licence to commence and carrying on the banking business in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands under Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Chairman and Vice-chairman alongwith other members of the managing committee were elected in a democratic process for a term of five years. The petitioner-bank was functioning initially in profit and expanded its horizon of banking activities by opening several branches within the Islands upon getting a permission/ licence from the Reserve Bank of India but subsequently there appears to be a recession in such business as the non performing asset has increased considerably. Subsequently, the inquiries and the other allied exercise were made in order to ascertain the commercial stability in such business and the strength of the petitioner no. 1; several letters were caused and the replies were invited thereto from the Managing Committee of the petitioner-bank. 3. From time to time the directions were passed by the Registrar of the Cooperative Society, the respondent no. 2, herein and those were challenged before this Court. The orders were passed sometimes setting aside the said order with the directions to initiate de - novo enquiries but the disputes remained and consistently continued for several years. 4. A show cause notice was issued by the Registrar of the Cooperative Society on February 25, 2019. The petitioners challenged the said show cause before this Court in taking out a writ petition being WP No. 79 of 2019 which came up before the Single Bench on March 8, 2019. 4. A show cause notice was issued by the Registrar of the Cooperative Society on February 25, 2019. The petitioners challenged the said show cause before this Court in taking out a writ petition being WP No. 79 of 2019 which came up before the Single Bench on March 8, 2019. After noticing the contents of the said show cause and the language employed therein, a sense was inculcated in the mind of the authority that the same is not in consonance with the spirit of the Regulations and the submission was advanced on behalf of the respondent authorities that they would not proceed further on the basis thereof as the same shall be withdrawn. On the basis of such submission so advanced, the writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter, the impugned show cause notice was issued on April 12, 2019 inviting the bank through its Managing Committee to submit reply to the allegation of charges leveled therein. 5. This gives rise to the initiation of the instant writ petition challenging the said show cause notice dated April 12, 2019 on various grounds including the competence of the Registrar of the Cooperative Society under the said Regulation. Apart from the same the challenges also based upon the allegations of bias, acting with the closed mind and in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Registrar under the aforesaid Regulation. The petitioners sought to project in the instant writ petition that the source of the said show cause notice is an outcome of political rivalry, more particularly, on the basis of complaint lodged by the member of the rival political party against the members of the Managing Committee being a supporter of another political party. 6. Several applications are taken out by the respective parties seeking amendment of reliefs and consequential orders but the moot question which this Court finds from the rival stands of the parties is concentrated on the legality and efficacy of the show cause notice both on factual and legal parameters. 7. Before this Court proceeds to deal with the points urged and argued by the respective counsels, it is an ardent duty to recapitulate position of law enunciated on the competence of the Writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the challenge over the show cause notice. 8. In case of State of Utter Pradesh Vs. 8. In case of State of Utter Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179 the power of the writ jurisdiction against issuance of show cause notice has been succinctly highlighted therein. It is held that the scope of judicial challenge to a show cause notice is very limited and the Writ Court should not interfere, in other words, rather reluctant to interfere at such stage unless the notice of show cause appears to have been issued by an authority who lacks such authority of law. It would be relevant to quote the observations made in the said report which runs thus:- '9. The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature, the High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice.' 9. The Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Shri Ramesh Kumar Singh and others reported in (1996) 1 SCC 327 reaffirmed the stands taken in Brahm Datt Sharma ( supra ) that the High Court should be slow in invoking the power enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against issuance of mere show cause notice. It is succinctly laid down therein that a show cause issued upon a person merely invites him to meet the allegations made therein which is not conclusive but a prima facie opinion and, therefore, the interference at such stage is premature. It is succinctly laid down therein that a show cause issued upon a person merely invites him to meet the allegations made therein which is not conclusive but a prima facie opinion and, therefore, the interference at such stage is premature. However, the interference may be made if there appears to be an infringement of fundamental rights or the authority issuing the show cause notice is not competent or the notice appears to be ex facie nullity and is totally without jurisdiction and, therefore, it would be mere idle formality to permit the continuance of such proceeding in the following: '10. We are concerned in this case, with the entertainment of the writ petition against a show-cause notice issued by a competent statutory authority. It should be borne in mind that there is no attack against the vires of the statutory provisions governing the matter. No question of infringement of any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is alleged or proved. It cannot be said that Ext. P-4 notice is ex facie a nullity or totally 'without jurisdiction' in the traditional sense of that expression that is to say, that even the commencement or initiation of the proceedings, on the face of it and without anything more, is totally unauthorised. In such a case, for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show-cause notice, at that stage, it should be shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction, to enter upon the enquiry in question. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party should avail of the alternate remedy and show cause against the same before the authority concerned and take up the objection regarding jurisdiction also, then. In the event of an adverse decision, it will certainly be open to him to assail the same either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, or in appropriate cases, by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. On the facts of this case, we hold that the first respondent was unjustified in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without first showing cause against Annexure Ext. P-4 before the third respondent. 11. On the facts of this case, we hold that the first respondent was unjustified in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without first showing cause against Annexure Ext. P-4 before the third respondent. The appropriate procedure for the first respondent would have been to file his objections and place necessary materials before the third respondent and invite a decision as to whether the proceedings initiated by the third respondent under Section 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982, are justified and appropriate. The adjudication in that behalf necessarily involves disputed questions of fact which require investigation. In such a case, proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution can hardly be an appropriate remedy. The High Court committed a grave error in entertaining the writ petition and in allowing the same by quashing Annexure Ext. P-4 and also the eviction proceedings No. 6 of 1992, without proper and fair investigation of the basic facts. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court of Patna in CWJC No. 82 of 1993 dated 10-2-1993. We hereby do so. The appeal is allowed with costs'. 10. In a subsequent decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 , the emphasis is made on the interference by the High Court against a show cause notice when such show cause notice appears to be a completely nonest for want of jurisdiction of the authority issuing the same. The Apex Court deprecated the practice of interfering with the show cause notice apart from the well recognised exceptions more particularly, on the merit of the allegations contained therein in these words: '5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show- cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court. Further, when the court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection not granted.' 11. However, in the case of Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanaranaya reported in (2006) 12 SCC 12 , the Apex Court held that the writ petition challenging show cause notice is premature unless it is manifestly seen that the authority has no powers to issue the same under the authority of law. The Apex court further held that interference at the state of show cause notice except on any other ground than the complete lack of authority under the land, is unwarranted in the following words: '13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or showcause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc. 14. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or showcause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge- sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 12. The law relating to the competence of the High Court in interfering at the show cause has been elaborately discussed in a later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India and others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 , wherein it was held as under:- '23. Relying on the underlined portions in the show-cause notice, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that even at the stage of the show-cause notice the third respondent has completely made up his mind and reached a definite conclusion about the alleged guilt of the appellant. This has rendered the subsequent proceedings an empty ritual and an idle formality. 24. This Court finds that there is a lot of substance in the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show-cause proceeding. This has rendered the subsequent proceedings an empty ritual and an idle formality. 24. This Court finds that there is a lot of substance in the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show-cause proceeding. A show-cause proceeding is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice. 25. Expressions like 'a reasonable opportunity of making objection' or 'a reasonable opportunity of defence' have come up for consideration before this Court in the context of several statutes. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India 1 , of course in the context of service jurisprudence, reiterated certain principles which are applicable in the present case also. 26. S.R. Das, C.J. speaking for the unanimous Constitution Bench in Khem Chand 1 held that the concept of 'reasonable opportunity' includes various safeguards and one of them, in the words of the learned Chief Justice, is: (AIR p. 307, para 19) '(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based;' 27. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show- cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceedings become an idle ceremony. 28. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against. 29. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against. 29. In the instant case from the underlined portion of the show-cause notice it is clear that the third respondent has demonstrated a totally closed mind at the stage of show- cause notice itself. Such a closed mind is inconsistent with the scheme of Rule 43 which is set out below. The aforesaid Rule has been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 33 of the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 and as such that Rule is statutory in nature. 30. Rule 43 of the MPEDA Rules provides as follows: '43. Cancellation of registration.Where the Secretary or other officer is satisfied that any person has obtained a certificate of registration by furnishing incorrect information or that he has contravened any of the provisions of this rule or of the conditions mentioned in the certificate of registration, or any person who has been registered as an exporter fails during the period of twelve consecutive months to export any of the marine products in respect of which he is registered, or if the Secretary or other officer is satisfied that such person has become disqualified to continue as an exporter, the Secretary or such officer may, after giving the person who holds a certificate a reasonable opportunity of making his objections, by order, cancel the registration and communicate to him a copy of such order.' 31. It is of course true that the show-cause notice cannot be read hypertechnically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show-cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show-cause notice and prove his innocence. But one thing is clear that while reading a show-cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show-cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show-cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show-cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi-judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence. 32. Therefore, while issuing a show-cause notice, the authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a show-cause notice. 33. The principle that justice must not only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi-judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it. 34. A somewhat similar observation was made by this Court in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant 2 . In that case, this Court was dealing with a showcause notice-cum-charge-sheet issued to an employee. While dealing with the same, this Court in para 25 (SCC p. 198 of the Report) by referring to the language in the show-cause notice observed as follows: '25. Upon consideration of the language in the showcause notice-cum-charge-sheet, it has been very strongly contended that it is clear that the officer concerned has a mindset even at the stage of framing of charges and we also do find some justification in such a submission since the chain is otherwise complete.' After para 25, this Court discussed in detail the emerging law of bias in different jurisdictions and ultimately held in para 35 (SCC p. 201 of the Report), the true test of bias is: '35. The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefromin the event however the conclusion is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained:' (emphasis supplied)' 13. In a recent decision rendered in Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia vs. M/s Krishna Wax (P) Ltd. reported in (Civil Appeal No.8609 of 2019 decided on November 14, 2019) the Apex Court has held that while issuing show cause notice the authority projects prima facie view inviting a reply/response from the person against whom such show cause notice is issued and, therefore, it would not be proper to interfere at the show cause stage in these words: '11. It must be noted that while issuing a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act, what is entertained by the Department is only a prima facie view, on the basis of which the show cause notice is issued. The determination comes only after a response or representation is preferred by the person to whom the show cause notice is addressed. As a part of his response, the concerned person may present his view point on all possible issues and only thereafter the determination or decision is arrived at. In the present case even before the response could be made by the respondent and the determination could be arrived at, the matter was carried in appeal against said Internal Order. The appellant was therefore, justified in submitting that the appeal itself was pre- mature. 12. It has been laid down by this Court that the excise law is a complete code in itself and it would normally not be appropriate for a Writ Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the concerned person must first raise all the objections before the authority who has issued a show cause notice and the redressal in terms of the existing provisions of the law could be taken resort to if an adverse order was passed against such person. For example in Union of India and another vs. Guwahati Carbon Limited, it was concluded; 'The Excise Law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and hence may not be appropriate for the writ court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution', while in Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India, it was observed:- ' The High Court, has, by the impugned judgment held that the Appellant should first raise all the objections before the Authority who have issued the show cause notice and in case any adverse order is passed against the Appellant, then liberty has been granted to approach the High Court in our view, the High Court was absolutely right in dismissing the writ petition against a mere show cause notice.' It is thus well settled that writ petition should normally not be entertained against mere issuance of show cause notice. In the present case no show cause notice was even issued when the High Court had initially entertained the petition and directed the Department to prima facie consider whether there was material to proceed with the matter.' 14. On assimilation of the views and the law declared in the above noted decisions what can be discerned therefrom is that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the show cause notice unless the exceptions carved out is evidently apparent therefrom. The cause of action against the show cause notice is premature as it does not affect the right of the parties nor penalizes the same. The allegations made in the show cause notice must be explicit, clear and exposes the basis to form the prima facie opinion inviting the party against whom it is issued to give his response to it. The allegations should not be vague, absurd and/or obscured so as to create an impression in the minds of the addressee difficulty in understanding the same. The show cause notice must be issued by an authority who have jurisdiction under the law and not by a person who lacks such authority. The object behind the issuance of the show cause notice is to invite the person against whom it addressed to defend the allegations and also to provide an opportunity of hearing. It is one of the facet of the principles of natural justice. 15. The object behind the issuance of the show cause notice is to invite the person against whom it addressed to defend the allegations and also to provide an opportunity of hearing. It is one of the facet of the principles of natural justice. 15. It is open to the person against whom the show cause is addressed to raise all the points including the jurisdictional one and the authority is bound to deal with such challenge even to rule its own authority. The moment the decision of the authority is culminated into a final order affecting the right of the party against whom the show cause was issued, it is open to challenge such final decision to a forum provided therefor. 16. In the backdrop of the law as stated above, let me examine whether the petitioners have been able to make out any case bringing within the periphery of the exceptions laid down in the various judicial pronouncements. 17. Indubitably, the show cause notice is issued by the Registrar of Cooperative alleging various violations of the Regulations/Byelaws by the Managing Committee of the Cooperative Bank. The said show cause notice is reproduced as under: 'Port Blair, dated the 12t h April, 2019 NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE (U/S. 27 of The Andaman & Nicobar Islands Cooperative Societies Regulations, 1973) Whereas, as per the findings of the inquiries, inspections and test audit conducted by the departmental officers, it is revealed that the Managing Committee of the Andaman & Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Port Blair (herein after referred as ANStCB for the purpose of brevity) has persistently defaulted and is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it under the provisions of the Bye-Laws of the society, the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Cooperative Societies Regulations 1973 and Rules framed there under and alleged to have committed the following acts which are pre-judicial to the functioning as well against the interest of the ANStCB:- 1. The Managing committee of ANStCB alleged to have sanctioned multiple loans to the Hotel Blue Wave Pvt. Ltd. Pahargaon, Port Blair owned by Smt. Vinita Sharma and Ms. Aastha Sharma wife and daughter of Shri. Kuldeep Rai Sharma, Vice-Chairman, A&N State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Port Blair for the purpose of construction of commercial building. The Managing committee of ANStCB alleged to have sanctioned multiple loans to the Hotel Blue Wave Pvt. Ltd. Pahargaon, Port Blair owned by Smt. Vinita Sharma and Ms. Aastha Sharma wife and daughter of Shri. Kuldeep Rai Sharma, Vice-Chairman, A&N State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Port Blair for the purpose of construction of commercial building. The details of the loans sanctioned by the Managing Committee on the strength of execution of deed of further charges on landed properties bearing Sy.No 90/4/19 measuring area 1600.00 Sq. mtrs. with building situated at Pahargaon (Dollygunj) village, Port Blair Tehsil is given below: Sl. No Particular of loan Amount (in Lakhs 1 Order No. St.CB/20-1/LTH(Com) 2015/1859 dated 18/9/2015 400.00 2 Order No. St.CB/20-1/LTH(Com) EMI/2017/1916 dated 11/10/2017 100.00 3 Order No. St.CB/20-1/LTH(Com) EMI/2017/3459 dated 27/12/2017 150.00 4 Order No. St.CB/20-1/LTH(Com) EMI/2017-18/3484 dated 12/02/2018 150.00 5 Order No. St.CB/20-1/LTH(Com) EMI/2018-19/665 dated 25/05/2018 40.00 6 Vide Order No. St.CB/20- 1/LTH(Com) EMI/2018-19/954 dated 29/06/2018 40.00 7 Order No. St.CB/20-1/LTH(Com) EMI/2018-19/1303 dated 02/08/2018 40.00 8 Order No. St.CB/20-1/LTH(Com) EMI/2018-19/1749 dated 17/09/2018 40.00 Total 960.00 The Managing Committee of ANStCB has alleged to have grossly violated the directives issued by the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under rule 49 of the A&N Islands, Cooperative Societies Rules, 1974 vide letter No. RCS/21-2/2017/TC/146 dated 15/02/2018 wherein among other directives, the ANStCB was directed to stop sanctioning of high value loans for construction of hotels, resorts, real estates and purchase of ships by sanctioning Rs.1.60 corers to Hotel Blue Wave Pvt. Ltd, Pahargaon, Port Blair in 04 different occasions @ Rs. 40.00 lakhs on 25/05/2018, 29/06/2018, 02/08/2018 and 17/09/2018 respectively by executing deed of further charge on the same landed property and building against which already an amount of Rs. 8.00 crores was sanctioned and released. In violation of the terms and conditions of loan sanctioned orders, the management of the ANStCB released sanctioned amount to the borrower in as many as installments as per the requirement and convenience of the borrower for instance (1) Rs. 4.00 crores in 94 installments, (2) Rs. 1.00 crore in 26 installments. (3) Rs. 1.50 crores in 49 installments, (4) Rs. 1.50 crores in 31 installments, (5) Rs. 40.00 lakhs in 16 installments, (6) Rs. 40.00 lakhs in 15 installments, (7) Rs. 40.00 lakhs in 23 installments and finally (8) Rs. 40.00 lakhs in 10 installments. Further, the loan account of Rs. 1.00 crore in 26 installments. (3) Rs. 1.50 crores in 49 installments, (4) Rs. 1.50 crores in 31 installments, (5) Rs. 40.00 lakhs in 16 installments, (6) Rs. 40.00 lakhs in 15 installments, (7) Rs. 40.00 lakhs in 23 installments and finally (8) Rs. 40.00 lakhs in 10 installments. Further, the loan account of Rs. 4.00 crpres was rescheduled 04 times to extend the period of repayment of the loan to the borrower and to prevent the loan from becoming NPA. The Managing Committee of ANStCB alleged to have favoured the borrower and sanctioned enhanced quantum of loans against increased valuation of landed properties leading to overcapacity without applying due diligence for credit appraisal and without obtaining additional tangible assets as security which is prejudicial to the interest of the ANStCB. 2. The alleged inaction and negligence on the part of the Managing Committee of ANStCB to deduct and make timely payment of EPF contribution of the EPF authority in respect of DRMs has resulted into imposition of damages or R.s 35,31,709/- U/S 14B and penal interest of Rs. 17,03,438/- U/s 7Q. Thus, the ANStCB had to bear a direct monetary loss amounted to Rs. 92,05,123.00 being damages, penal interest and Employees Contribution. 3. That alleged mismanagement of the affairs of the ANStCB by the Managing Committee of ANStCB has adversely impacted the profitability of the ANStCB, but the managing committee of the ANStCB misrepresented the facts by falsified Balance sheet of the ANStCB to overstate profit for the year 2017-18. As revealed by the audit report of the ANStCB for the year 2017-18, building fund of Rs. 400 lakhs is drawn down by making direct adjustment in the Balance Sheet. The additions made in the audit report under 'Reserves and Surplus' (Annexure I) in respect of provision for NPA of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- at Sl.No. 8 and an amount of Rs. 2,70,00,000/- towards provision for income tax at Sl.No. 12 are not in conformity with the figures shown under 'Provisions &Contingencies' (Schedule 19), where, provision for income tax is shown as Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and provision for NPA is shown as nil. This resulted into discrepancies involving an amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- which have been adjusted by drawing down the Building fund in gross violation of the accounting standards as well as violation of the Bye-law No. 37 of the ANStCB. 1,00,00,000/- and provision for NPA is shown as nil. This resulted into discrepancies involving an amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- which have been adjusted by drawing down the Building fund in gross violation of the accounting standards as well as violation of the Bye-law No. 37 of the ANStCB. The alleged falsification of Balance Sheet has resulted into overstating of the net profits and increased tax liability of the ANStCB which is prejudicial to the interest of the ANStCB. 4. The alleged mismanagement on the part of the Managing Committee of the ANStCB has resulted into a direct loss of Rs. 3,16,83,578.70 on account of failure of the management of the ANStCB to deduct and remit the TDS from the interests paid to its depositors for the years from 2015-16 to 2017-18. The ANStCB paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,20,681/- (Rupees Five crores twenty thousand six hundred eighty one only) during the year 2017-18 towards previous years Income Tax liabilities of Rs. 4, 35,0,1232.00 and interest of Rs. 65,19,449.00. Out of the total amount of the TDS Rs. 5,00,20,681/-, the ANStCB could realize only an amount of Rs. 1,83,37,102.30 from its depositors. To conceal the loss of Rs. 3,16,83,578.70, it is directly adjusted against the investment diminution fund without reflecting it in the Profit & Loss account for the year 2017-18. This allege act of Management has resulted into projection of inflated net profits in the Profit and Loss account of the ANStCB for the year 2017-18. 5. The Managing Committee of the ANStCB alleged to have misrepresented NPA statement of the ANStCB as on 31/03/2018 by disguising a bad account as good to project a rosy picture of the ANStCBs health. The Management of the ANStCB worked out the gross NPA of the ANStCB as on 31/03/2018 as 18.42%, but the actual gross NPA worked out by the Test Auditors is 46.33%, which shows the deteriorated health of the ANStCB. The Audit Report for the year 2017-18 reveals a total of 1434 NPA accounts. Amounting to Rs. 105,73,09,766.69 (Rupees One hundred five crores seventy three lakhs nine thousand seven hundred sixty six and sixty nine paisa only) whereas the actual NPA arrived by the Test Audit as on 31/03/2018 is Rs. 266,00,72,825.84 (Rupees Two hundred sixty six crores seventy two thousand eight hundred twenty five and eighty four paisa only). Amounting to Rs. 105,73,09,766.69 (Rupees One hundred five crores seventy three lakhs nine thousand seven hundred sixty six and sixty nine paisa only) whereas the actual NPA arrived by the Test Audit as on 31/03/2018 is Rs. 266,00,72,825.84 (Rupees Two hundred sixty six crores seventy two thousand eight hundred twenty five and eighty four paisa only). The management of the ANStCB excluded 651 NPA accounts amounting to Rs. 160,27,63,059.15 (Rupees one hundred sixty crores twenty seven lakhs sixty three thousand fifty nine and fifteen paisa only) from the total NPA as on 31/03/2018. This alleged wrong decision of the Managing Committee of the ANStCB in indiscriminate sanction of loans to projects including commercial housing, hotels, resorts, shipping sector and CC/OD limits to units/companies without applying due diligence for appraisal of commercial proposals resulted into sharp rise in the NPA, bit the managing committee instead of taking step to set right the NPA treat preferred to conceal the deteriorated health of the ANStCB which is prejudicial to the interest of the society and its members. 6. The Managing Committee of ANStCB alleged to have overstated net profit of the ANStCB for the year 2017-18 without making adequate provision for NPA. The provision for NPA made by the ANStCB in its accounts as on 31/03/2018 is Rs.2,827.97 lakhs against the NPA of Rs. 105,73,09,766.69 (Rupees one hundred five crore seventy three lakhs nine thousand seven hundred sixty six and paisa sixty nine only). But considering the actual NPA, which comes to the tune of Rs. 266, 00,72,825.84, an additional provision for NPA to the tune of Rs. 1243.16 lakhs is required to be made in the accounts to make the total provision of NPA to Rs. 4071.13 lakhs as on 31/03/2018 as per the prescribed guidelines. The sharp increase in the NPA has alleged to have deteriorated the health of the ANStCB. 7. That is alleged that the Managing Committee of ANStCB engaged about 200 numbers of DRMs without observing norms for merit based selection of the DRMs, thereby alleged to have disregarded the efficiency of its human resource which adversely affected the performance of the ANStCB. The ANStCB incurred an expenditure of more than Rs.8.00 crore towards wages paid to DRMs for the period from Jan. The ANStCB incurred an expenditure of more than Rs.8.00 crore towards wages paid to DRMs for the period from Jan. 2014 to May 2018 without making proper assessment of the manpower requirement and without evolving any mechanism to evaluate the performance of the DRMs with reference to the expenditure incurred on them, such alleged negligence in the performance of the duties imposed on it by the Regulation and bye-laws has allegedly directly impacted the profitability and efficiency of the ANStCB. 8. It is further alleged that lack of concern and gross negligence on the part of the Managing Committee of ANStCB has exposed the ANStCB to a probable loss of Rs.17,58,24,522/- in respect of gold loans, as the entire amount has become NPA and out of which, an amount of Rs.5,27,48,244/- is under scanner for suspected fraud and cheating on teh ANStCB for pledge of impure gold by the borrowers with the connivance of teh ANStCBs Gold Appraiser. 9. That the Managing Committee of ANStCB alleged to have sanctioned huge amounts of loans, but failed to give due attention to the high mounting NPA and take action required for its recovery. The Managing Committee resorted to unethical practice by overlooking obvious signs of NPAs, and disguising a bad account as good to show a rosy picture of the financial health of the ANStCB. The Managing Committee delayed action for years together against some defaulters of high value loans which has impaired the banking system of Bank and has become a major threat to the financial position of the ANStCB. The NPA monitoring sub-committee was reconstituted by the Managing Committee on 06/05/2015, but the sub- committee has not performed to serve the purpose. The Managing Committee of ANStCB has not devised a suitable policy to manage NPA for providing focused attention towards monitoring of big value overdue loans. The ANStCB disbursed loans & advances to the tune of Rs.153,47,76,272.00 during the year 2017-18. The Managing Committee of ANStCB has thus failed to make any special efforts t analyze the NPA position and formulate a strategy to reduce the same but reluctant to recognise the alarming position of NPA. There has been a sharp increased in the NPA, which reached to a record high of Rs.26600.72 lakhs, threatening the very viability of the ANStCB. 10. There has been a sharp increased in the NPA, which reached to a record high of Rs.26600.72 lakhs, threatening the very viability of the ANStCB. 10. That the Managing Committee of the ANStCB is alleged to have committed gross irregularities in sanction of loan to M/s Samudrika Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Port Blair. The Managing Committee of the ANStCB discussed and approved sanction of the loan of Rs.1.60 crore on 30/12/2013 to M/s Samudrika Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Port Blair, before the loan application was made. The scrutiny of the proceeding of the bank held on 30/12/2013 under agenda No.08 at serial No.31 revealed that the valuation of the land of Shri Mangal Singh issued by the Approved Valuer on 09//01/2014 for Rs.85.00 lakhs was recorded in the proceedings of the meeting held on 30/12/2013 that is prior to 10 days of issue of the valuation certificate. Besides, this, the landed property purchased by the borrower for Rs.27 lakh from Shri Mangal Singh was offered as security for the loan, and the next day the ANStCB accepted the valuation of the said property as Rs.85 lakh being collateral security against the loan of Rs.160 lakh for purchase of ship. The sanction order of the loan was issued on 15/01/2014 whereas the Credit Review cum Recommendation letter processed by the Bank was forwarded by the Branch Manager to General Manager Development on 16/01/2014, the very next day of the issue of loan sanction order. The bank in violation of the conditions of the sanction order released the loan amount to M/s Samudrika Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Instead of M/s Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd. On 18/01/2014. The borrower was allowed to withdraw and utilize the sanctioned loan amount for other purpose and also allowed to sell the ship so purchased in violation of terms and conditions of the loan sanction order. The Loan has turned into NPA and the Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Port Blair is exposed to financial risk. The 04 Board of Directors of the previous Managing Committee namely Shri Bhagat Singh-Chairman, Shri.Kuldeep Rai Sharma-Vice-Chairman, Shri K.Subramanian, Director and Late Saroop Lall, Director sanctioned the loan were also members of the existing Managing Committee. Thus the previous as well as the existing Board of Management alleged to have failed to discharge their duties and responsibilities vested upon them by bye-law No.26, 27, 28, 31 and 32 of the Bank. 11. Thus the previous as well as the existing Board of Management alleged to have failed to discharge their duties and responsibilities vested upon them by bye-law No.26, 27, 28, 31 and 32 of the Bank. 11. That the Managing Committee of the ANStCB is alleged to have sanctioned a loan of Rs.20 lakhs on 1.3.2014 (the date of Board meeting held) to Shri R.Nagaswamy and further a Temporary over Draft (TOD) of Rs.25 lakhs was sanctioned on 04.3.2014 against the security of land measuring 200 sq. Mtrs. Valued at Rs.16.50 lakhs. The Managing Committee alleged to have favoured the borrow by sanctioning enhanced quantum of loans, otherwise not eligible, by circumventing the prescribed norms and ignoring normal banking safeguards, thereby alleged to have acted against the interest of ANStCB. 12. That the Managing Committee of the ANStCB is alleged to have sanctioned Rs. 1.50 crores on 01.03.2014 to M/s Arul Earth Movers Private Ltd, and further a TOD of Rs. 50 lakhs on 20.3.2014 irrespective of requirement/status of the borrower against the security of landed property valued at Rs. 1.75 Crores. Thereby alleged that the credit worthiness of the borrow was not considered and adequate security was not obtained and thus exposed the ANStCB to credit risk. 13. That the Managing Committee of the ANStCB is alleged to have sanctioned with an overdraft facility of Rs. 3.50 Crores on 30/04/2016 to M/s S. L. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Prothrapur, the limit was further enhanced to Rs. 8.00 Crores on 28/10/2016 just with in a period of 06 months of first sanction limit. Despite the remark of Senior Manger and the Dy. General Manager (Banking) as, 'this is not a fit case' the Managing Committee sanctioned Rs. 8.00 crore to the firm without obtaining Non-Encumbrance, KYC and Search Report of the property from the advocate. Thereby the managing Committee alleged to have failed to protect the interest of the ANStCB, and failed to discharge duties with integrity and honesty. 14. It is alleged that the Managing Committee of ANStCB on 25/02/2016 approved a loan of Rs.6.00 Crores, which was sanctioned to the S. L. Project (P) Ltd., vide Order No. No.StCB/20-1/LTH (Com)/2015-16/3657 dated 29/02/2016 despite negative observation made by the Assistant General Manager, Port Blair Branch in the Credit Review DUM Recommendation Letter (CRCML) that the value of the property Sy. No.157/1 & 157/3 measuring an area of 6384 Sq. No.157/1 & 157/3 measuring an area of 6384 Sq. mtrs, valued at Rs.5,30,64,000/- do not cover the loan applied for. The party is enjoying an Overdraft limit to the extent of Rs.7.50 Crores and having outstanding balance is Rs.7,63,76,865 in the OD account. The transaction is not satisfactory and the party is not a regular customer of the branch. Building plan not got approved by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Havelock. No recommendation was made in this case. In addition to the above, the Managing Committee of ANStCB in its meeting held on 28/02/2017 alleged to have resolved to sanction an amount of Rs.3.50 Crores, which was sanctioned to the ssaid firm, S. L Project (P) Ltd. vide Order No. StCB/20-1/LTCH (Commercial)/2016- 17/36858 dated 20/03/2017 for the purpose of completion of resort. The loan was sanction on the collateral security of landed property valued at Rs. 10.75 Crores already mortgaged against an earlier loan of Rs. 9.5 Crores. This clearly indicates that the managing committee of the ANStCB allegedly has sanctioned additional loans to the same firm without proper rationale and justification, exposing the ANStCB to financial loss. Besides the above, it is alleged that the Managing Committee of ANStCB in its meeting held on 20/08/2017 passed a resolution to sanction further amount of Rs.3.50 Crores which was sanctioned to the said firm, S. L. Project (P) Ltd. vide Order No.StCB/20- 1/LTH(Com)/EMI/2017/1822 dated 06/10/2017 for the purpose of completion of hotel by creating further charge on the landed property already mortgaged with ANStCB against sanction of 02 other term loan Rs.6.00 Crores and Rs. 3.50 Crores on 29/02/2016 and 20/03/2017 respectively. In addition to the above, the Managing Committee of the ANStCB sanctioned an overdraft of Rs. 7.50 Crores to the said firm, S. L Project (P) Ltd., vide order No. StCB/20- 1/0D/2013-14/8581 dated 04/03/2014 for the purpose of working capital on creation of further charge on the landed property bearing Sy. No. 203/84, Sy. No.12/7. 13/3 situated at Brichgunj, Sy. No.1/113 area 1200 sq. mtrs. at Brookshabad and equitable mortgage on landed property Sy. No.203/65 area 7,700.00 sq. mtrs. classified as O.R land situated at Teylorabad value Rs. 92,27,750/- as per Registered valuer recorded in the name of Shri Sanjay Lall, S/o Shri Shyam Lall and Sy. No.318/16 area 194.00 sq. mtrs. classified as house site at Garacharma value Rs. No.1/113 area 1200 sq. mtrs. at Brookshabad and equitable mortgage on landed property Sy. No.203/65 area 7,700.00 sq. mtrs. classified as O.R land situated at Teylorabad value Rs. 92,27,750/- as per Registered valuer recorded in the name of Shri Sanjay Lall, S/o Shri Shyam Lall and Sy. No.318/16 area 194.00 sq. mtrs. classified as house site at Garacharma value Rs. 7257,900 by Registered valuer recorded in the name of Shri Sanjay Lall, S/o Shri Shyam Lall. The proposal was directly received by the Head Office and no credit appraised was done at any level before the proposal was put up for sanction before the board and the Board in its meeting held on 01/03/2014 approved the proposal without the credit appraisal of the firm which is prejudicial to the interest of the ANStCB. The Managing Committee of ANStCB alleged to have acted in connivance with the firm to raise loans for the firm by sanctioning multiple credit facilities to the same firm without ascertaining the credit worthiness of the firm thereby exposed the ANStCB to financial risk. 15. that the Managing Committee of ANStCB is also alleged to have sanction to M/s Andaman & Nicobar Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd., Bimblitan a term loan of Rs. 1.80 Crores vide order No. StCB/20-1/LTOP (I)/EMI/2017/354 dated 03/05/2017 for the purpose of establishing mineral water project after the Managing Committee passed a resolution on 21/04/2017. Further, additional term loan of Rs. 30.00 lacs on 11.10.2017 and Rs. 35.00 lacs on 17/02/2018 were sanctioned against the collateral security of disputed landed property. A total loan of 245 lacs was sanctioned in violation of the prudential norms against the project cost was Rs. 222.79 lacs, which is 102% of the project cost. The loans have become NPA and the ANStCB is alleged to have exposed to high credit risk due to the wrong lending decisions of the Managing Committee. 16. It is also alleged that on the decision of the Managing Committee of ANStCB M/s Yar Shipping and Catering Private Limited was sanctioned with Rs. 2.00 Crores on 22/03/2017 and on 28/02/2017 for the purpose of purchase a Ship against the security of landed property bearing Sy. No.15/2 area 300 Sq. mtrs. classified as Abadi at School Line valued Rs.1,17,00000/- and landed property bearing Sy. No.120/14/P area 425 sq. mtrs. classified as house site at Haddo valued at Rs. 43,52,000/-. 2.00 Crores on 22/03/2017 and on 28/02/2017 for the purpose of purchase a Ship against the security of landed property bearing Sy. No.15/2 area 300 Sq. mtrs. classified as Abadi at School Line valued Rs.1,17,00000/- and landed property bearing Sy. No.120/14/P area 425 sq. mtrs. classified as house site at Haddo valued at Rs. 43,52,000/-. The ship purchased is not hypothecated to the ANStCB and so the value of the security charged is not enough to ensure recovery of the dues to the ANStCB is full which is alleged to be prejudicial to the interest of the ANStCB. 17. The Managing Committee of the ANStCB is alleged to have sanctioned loan of Rs. 8 Crores on 01/3/2014 to M/s Falcon Recsort Pvt. Ltd. for resort project at Havelock by circumventing the prescribed forms and ignoring normal banking safeguards. The management is alleged to have not applied due diligence for credit appraisal of sand proposal sanctioned the loan vide Order No.StCB/20- 1/LTH (Com)/2013-14/8725 dated 04/03/2014 on the strength of landed property valued at Rs. 5.00 crores. The firm withdrew Rs.3.00 Crores on two occasions, i.e. Rs. 2.00 cr. On 24/03/2014 & further Rs.1.00 cr. On 09/04/2014 on the strength of landed property valued at Rs.5.00 crores. The firm withdrew Rs. 3.00 Crores on two occasions, i.e. Rs. 2.00 cr. on 24/03/2014 & further Rs. 1.00 cr. on 09/04/2014. The firm withdrawn Rs. 3.00 crores for the project but failed to complete the project and thus the loan has become NPA. The alleged failure of the managing committee to assess the creditworthiness of the firm and to obtain adequate tangible assets as a security has exposed to ANStCB to credit risk. 18. It is also alleged that the imprudence decision of Managing Committee of the ANStCB to organize a big public function to celebrate International Womens day on 08/03/2014 in a big way with an intention to gain political mileage resulted into wasteful spending of Rs. 22.02 lakh of ANStCB/s fund. The alleged mis-utilisation of ANStCBs fund bya the managing committee has resulted into erosion of ANStCBs fund of Rs.22.02 lakhs. 19. 22.02 lakh of ANStCB/s fund. The alleged mis-utilisation of ANStCBs fund bya the managing committee has resulted into erosion of ANStCBs fund of Rs.22.02 lakhs. 19. That it is alleged that due to willful and wrong decision of the Managing Committee of the ANStCB in indiscriminate sanctioning of loan to projects including commercial housing, hotel, resorts, shipping section and CC/OD limits to units/companies without applying due diligence for appraisal of commercial proposals resulted into sharp rise in the NPA of the ANStCB causing adverse impact on the Balance Sheet of the ANStCB and its financial health. The Managing Committee alleged to have favoured certain borrowers by sanctioning enhanced quantum of loans against increased valuation of landed properties by circumventing the prescribed norms and ignoring normal banking safeguards, thereby threatened the viability of the ANStCB. 20. It is also alleged that the Managing Committee of ANStCB without applying due diligence for appraisal of commercial proposals sanctioned an overdraft facility of Rs.5.00 Crores on 15/5/2016 to M/s Selvam Store (Pvt Ltd) R/o Babu Lane and on 24/10/2016 and further enhanced overdraft limit to Rs. 10.00 Crores just with in a period of 05 months of first sanction limit against a security of landed property valued at Rs. 968.88 lakhs. The Managing Committee alleged to have favoured the borrower by sanctioning enhanced quantum of loan against increased valuation of landed property by circumventing the prescribed norms and ignoring normal banking safeguards thereby acted against the interest of the ANStCB. 21. It is alleged that reckless spending of Rs. 635.43 lakhs of ANStCBs fund by the Managing Committee of the ANStCB for unproductive purpose, viz., construction, renovation, alteration and repairs of own building and rented buildings has adversely impacted the liquidity and profitability of the ANStCB. The ANStCB incurred expenditure of Rs. 78.40 lakhs for renovation of the branches of ANStCB housed in rented buildings and after renovation of the rented buildings, some of the branches were shifted to other buildings without any logical reason. Moreover, the ANStCB rented buildings to accommodate its branches at abnormally high rents, when compared toa the rate of rent fixed by the hiring committee of the A & N Administration (which is Rs. 11.11 per sq. ft.). The ANStCB rented buildings at an exorbitant rent without any logic or reason for fixation of such high rent. Moreover, the ANStCB rented buildings to accommodate its branches at abnormally high rents, when compared toa the rate of rent fixed by the hiring committee of the A & N Administration (which is Rs. 11.11 per sq. ft.). The ANStCB rented buildings at an exorbitant rent without any logic or reason for fixation of such high rent. The alleged reckless spending of ANStCBS fund for unproductive purposes has registered an increase in the total expenditure, having significant impact on the profitability of the ANStCB. 22. That the Managing Committee of ANStCB is alleged to have grossly violated the directives issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under rule 49 of the A & N Islands Cooperative Socities Rule, 1974 vide letter No. intention to prevent further deterioration of the ANStCBs health due to the indiscriminate sanction of loans by the management of the ANStCB to projects like commercial housing, hotels, resorts, shipping sector and CC/OD limits to units/companies without applying due diligence for appraisal of commercial proposals. The ANStCB was directed to stop sanctioning of high value loans for constructin of hotels, resorts, real estates and purchase of ships but the Management of the ANStCB alleged to have sanctioned Rs.1.60 crores to Hotel Blue Wave Pvt. Ltd, Pahargaon, Port Blair in violation of the prescribed fornms and loan policy. 23. The Management Committee of the ANStCB alleged to have failed to furnish information/statements required by M/s D. Garodia & Co., Auditor of the ANStCB and carry out rectification in the audit report for the year 2017-18 as suggested the Test Auditors, despite direction issued by the RCS vide letter No. RCS(Audit)46/2016/11 dated 04/01/2019 and also request made by M/s D. Garodia & Co. AND WHEREAS, the above alleged action and inactions on the part of the Managing Committee alleged to have caused huge monetary loss to the ANStCB, which indicates the utter failure on the part of the Managing Committee of ANStCB in performance of its duties imposed on it by the Bye-laws, the directives issued under rule 49 and the observation of NABARD in its Inspection Report as on 21s t March 2017 which attracts action under provision of Section 27 of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Cooperative Societies Regulation 1973. Now therefore, in view of the above fact, and after duly abiding with the observations and liberty granted by the Honble High Court of Calcutta circuit bench sitting at Port Blair while hearing the Writ Petition NO.079 of 2019 on 8t h March, 2019 and with due consultation with the NABARD (credit agency to which the ANStCB in indebted) you are hereby directed to state the written objection of the Managing Committee of the ANStCB along with supporting documents, if any, as to why action should not be taken against the Managing Committee of the ANStCB for the above lapses, under Section 27 of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Cooperative Societies Regulation, 1973 and other relevant provisions of the Regulation, Rules and Bye-laws of the society. The above written objection should be submitted to the undersigned on or before 2 nd May 2019 at 03:00 p.m., failing which, it will be presumed that the Managing Committee of the Andaman & Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Port Blair has nothing to say on the above matter and/or, if the reply furnished by the Management is found unsatisfactory as per the provision of the prevailing Regulation, Rules and Bye-laws of the society, necessary action will be taken without any further notice. Sd/- Registrar of Cooperative Societies 12t h April, 2019 To The Chairman, A & N State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Port Blair.' 18. The first and foremost challenge is founded on the authority of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to initiate the proceeding under Regulation 27 of the said Regulations. The said Regulation provided as such:- '27. Sd/- Registrar of Cooperative Societies 12t h April, 2019 To The Chairman, A & N State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Port Blair.' 18. The first and foremost challenge is founded on the authority of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to initiate the proceeding under Regulation 27 of the said Regulations. The said Regulation provided as such:- '27. Super-session of committee:- (1) If, in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee of any co-operative society persistently makes default or it is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Regulation or the rules or bye-laws, or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members, the Registrar may, after giving committee an opportunity to state its objection, if any, by order in writing remove the committee; and (a) order fresh election of the committee; or (b) appoint one or more administrators, who need not be members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order which period may at the discretion of the Registrar, be extended from time to time, so however, that the aggregate period does not exceed three years. (2) The Registrar may fix such remuneration for the administrator or administrators as he may think fit and such remuneration shall be paid out of the funds of the cooperative society. (3) The administrator shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and take all such actions as may be required in the interest of the society. (4) The administrator shall, at the expiry of his term of office, arrange for the constitution of a new committee in accordance with the bye-laws of the society. (5) Before taking any action under sub-section (I) in respect of a co-operative society indebted to a credit agency, the Registrar shall consult the credit agency, to which it is indebted regarding such action.' 19. (5) Before taking any action under sub-section (I) in respect of a co-operative society indebted to a credit agency, the Registrar shall consult the credit agency, to which it is indebted regarding such action.' 19. It is apparent from the aforesaid provision that the Registrar may order in writing to remove the committee and order for fresh election of the committee or appoint one or more administrators if, in his opinion, the committee of the cooperative society persistently makes default or negligent in performance of his duties imposed by this regulation or the rules or bye laws or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members. 20. The aforesaid order will not see the light of the day unless an opportunity to object the aforesaid exercise to be undertaken is provided to the said committee, at least there is no ambiguity in my mind that the Registrar is competent to issue a show cause notice before embarking its journey on any of the eventualities provided the ingredients laid down therein are satisfied. 21. One of the contention of the writ petitioner is that the Registrar is contemplating to appoint an administrator superseding the managing committee and therefore, such action is tainted with bias. I am not convinced with the aforesaid submission for the simple reasons that contemplation to take action under the Regulation, on the prima facie allegation, cannot be a sole ground for declaring the show cause to be bad, invalid and contrary to law. The issue of the show cause is in contemplation to the decision to be taken on the prima facie allegations after affording an opportunity of hearing to a person against whom it is issued which may not come into reality, if the objections are found by the authorities plausible, reasonable and convincing. 22. Every show cause is issued in contemplation to an action to be taken against the person against whom it is addressed and it would be too early to say that such authority will take such action and the proceeding initiated on the basis of the show cause is mere an ideal formality. It is now doubt true that the authority be it a quasi-judicial or administrative has to proceed with the show cause with open mind and the decision must be supported by a proper and valid reason. 23. It is now doubt true that the authority be it a quasi-judicial or administrative has to proceed with the show cause with open mind and the decision must be supported by a proper and valid reason. 23. Another point, which is raised, is on the competence of the Registrar to issue a show cause notice as the Cooperative Bank is discharging the functions of banking within the islands and therefore is subservient to the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. As indicated above, the cooperative society is registered under the said Regulation though the bye-laws is indicative of the fact that it is engaged in a banking business, the Registrar can invoke the jurisdiction enshrined under Regulation 27 only and only if the incidences provided therein prima facie exist. 24. Regulation 50 confers power under the Registrar to make an enquiry and is also entitled to have a free access to the books, documents, securities, accounts and other properties in the custody of the society and may also summon the person responsible for such custody in case of any breach. The power to audit the accounts of every cooperative society is also vested upon the Registrar under Regulation 48 of the Regulation. The credit agency is defined in Regulation 2 (g) of the said Regulation to mean a cooperative society which has a principal object of lending the money to other cooperative societies. 25. A point is raised in the instant writ petition that since the cooperative bank is engaged in the banking business and are governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which provides enough mechanism to look into any issues, the action can only be contemplated under the aforesaid provisions and not under the cooperative societies regulation. The reference to Section 35 A of the Banking Regulation Act is misplaced. The said section provides for a direction by the Reserve Bank of India to the banking companies provided it is in a public interest or in the interest banking policy or to prevent the affairs of banking company being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the depositors or prejudicial to the interests of the banking company or to secure proper management of any banking company in general and such banking companies are bound to comply with such directions. 26. 26. Part-II A of the Banking Regulation Act which was introduced subsequently by an amendment having brought by an Act 55 of 1963 vested the power upon the Reserve Bank of India to have a control over the management with ancillary powers to remove the managerial and other office bearers. But the applicability thereof has been whittled down under section 56 (zb) thereof. Taking lead from the aforesaid facts it is submitted that there is a complete autonomy in the management of the cooperative bank viz-a-viz the Registrar of the Cooperative Society and therefore, any action contemplated by the said authority is beyond the authority of law. Several facts have been disclosed by the respective parties pertaining to the consistent audit and inquiry not only by the credit agency appointed under the said Regulation but also with the Reserve Bank of India and ultimately after getting the report from the aforesaid authorities, the action was considered expedient. 27. Even if those points have any relevance, in my opinion, it has not closed the door of the writ petitioner to vindicate such points before the authority. The authorities, in the show cause notice, have alleged the violation not only of the statutory provisions but also the regulations and bye-laws governing the petitioner bank and therefore it is still open to the petitioner to raise the points that such violation does not come within the circumference of the Regulations or the bye-laws or is beyond the perceivable the statutory limits and the Registrar of Cooperative Society shall consider the same including the authority to adjudicate upon the allegations made in the show cause notice. 28. The entire cause of action appears to be premature and this Court does not find that any interference against the show cause notice is warranted. 29. However, it is made clear that none of the observations shall have any persuasive effect on the veracity and sustainability of the allegations. The authority shall decide the proceeding initiated on the basis of a show cause independently and by recording valid and proper reasons. Since the instant writ petition was pending in the docket of the Court for considerable period of time, naturally the time to file objection to the show cause has lapsed but bearing in mind the spirit of Regulation 27(1) of the said Regulation, the time to file objection is extended by three weeks from date. Since the instant writ petition was pending in the docket of the Court for considerable period of time, naturally the time to file objection to the show cause has lapsed but bearing in mind the spirit of Regulation 27(1) of the said Regulation, the time to file objection is extended by three weeks from date. The respondent no.2 will make endeavour to complete the proceeding as expeditiously as possible. 30. The writ petitions and the connected applications are, thus, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.