JUDGMENT : P.B.Suresh Kumar, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.6.2019 in W.P.(C) No.14689 of 2019. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as they appear in the writ petition. 2. Petitioner was the President of the Managing Committee of Thumboor Service Co-operative Bank Limited (the Bank), a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act). On 30.04.2019, the jurisdictional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies exercising the powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Act in respect of the Bank issued Ext.P7 notice to the petitioner and other members of the Managing Committee of the Bank invoking sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act calling upon them to show cause why they shall not be removed from office. It is alleged in the said notice that the petitioner and other members of the Managing Committee have illegally and without authority expended amounts much more than what was sanctioned for construction of a few buildings; that they are not releasing gold ornaments pledged with the Bank to the borrowers on liquidation of their liabilities; that they have splurged in buying expensive gifts for the members of the Bank; that they are disbursing interests for deposits over and above the rates prescribed by the Registrar and that they are engaging provisional employees for the operation of the Bank. The petitioner and others offered explanations to the various charges levelled against them in Ext.P7 notice. Ext.P8 is the explanation offered by the petitioner to the charges. The Joint Registrar, thereupon, afforded to the petitioner and others an opportunity of hearing and later issued Ext.P11 order superseding the Managing Committee of the Bank. Ext.P11 order was under challenge in the writ petition, among others, on the ground that the Joint Registrar has not consulted properly the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union concerned before passing Ext.P11 order as required in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. 3. Ext.P11 order was under challenge in the writ petition, among others, on the ground that the Joint Registrar has not consulted properly the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union concerned before passing Ext.P11 order as required in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding, among others, that the sole pertinent requirement as regards consultation is that the consultees must have known of the tentative findings of the Joint Registrar and the action proposed by him on the basis of the same; that the Joint Registrar has informed the consultees the tentative findings and the action proposed by him as per his communication dated 21.05.2019 and that the consultees have issued their unmistakable opinion, agreeing to the proposal made by the Joint Registrar. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge and hence, this appeal. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Senior Government Pleader. 5. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Jose Kuttiyani v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, AIR 1982 Kerala 12 and Sahadevan v. Padmanabhan, 2004 (1) KLT 192 , as also the decision of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach, (2013) 7 SCC 25 , the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the contemplation of the statute as regards the consultation provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act is that the opinion of the consultees on the supersession of the Managing Committee of a Society shall be an informed one and that an informed opinion on supersession could be obtained from the consultees only if they are informed of the tentative findings rendered by Joint Registrar on the various charges levelled against the managing committee. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the Joint Registrar has not informed the consultees of his tentative findings on the various charges levelled against the Managing Committee and the consultation made before the Joint Registrar arrived at his tentative findings is bad in law and would not satisfy the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 32. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the communication issued by the Joint Registrar to the consultees on 21.05.2019 would certainly satisfy the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the communication issued by the Joint Registrar to the consultees on 21.05.2019 would certainly satisfy the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. The learned Senior Government Pleader has also made available the copies of the communications between the Joint Registrar and the consultees referred to in Ext.P11 order. 7. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record including the communications between the Joint Registrar and the consultees. 8. Though several grounds were urged before the learned Single Judge to impugn the order of supersession, as noted, the only point pressed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the appeal is that the materials on record do not disclose compliance of the requirements under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. 9. Sub-section (1) of Section 32 confers power on the Registrar to supersede the Managing Committee of a Society by an order in writing on a finding as to the existence of any one or more of the jurisdictional grounds mentioned therein. Sub-section (2) of Section 32 however provides that the Registrar shall consult the financing bank and the Circle Co-Operative Union or the State Co-operative Union, as the case may be, before passing an order under sub-section (1) of Section 32. The said sub-section reads thus: (2) The Registrar shall consult the financing bank and Circle Cooperative Union or State Co-operative Union as the case may be before passing an order under sub-section (1). The object behind sub-section (2) of Section 32 is that the financing bank and the Circle Co-Operative Union concerned shall have a say in the matter of the Registrar exercising the power under sub-section (1) of Section 32 to supersede the Managing Committee of a society. The requirement in terms of subsection (2) of Section 32 is therefore not a mere formality, but one to be complied with by the Registrar in its letter and spirit. 10. The word “consult” implies a conference of two or more persons or an impact of two or more minds in respect of a topic in order to enable them to evolve a correct or at least a satisfactory decision on the topic. 10. The word “consult” implies a conference of two or more persons or an impact of two or more minds in respect of a topic in order to enable them to evolve a correct or at least a satisfactory decision on the topic. For the two minds to confer and produce a mutual impact, it is essential that each must have for its consideration full and identical facts, which can at once constitute both the source and foundation of the final decision [See Jose Kuttiyani]. In the context of a consultation as provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act, for the consultation to be complete and effective, it is necessary that adequate reasons are also given by the Registrar to the consultees on the proposal made by him in order to obtain from the consultees an intelligent response on the proposal. Coming to the question as to the stage at which the consultation is to be made, there cannot be any doubt that the consultation in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 32 is not one to be made at the stage of the issuance of the show cause notice, for the Registrar, at that point of time, does not make up his mind as to whether the society needs to be superseded or not. The consultation in terms of the said provision is therefore, one to be made only after the Registrar arrives at his tentative findings on the correctness or sustainability of the charges levelled against the Managing Committee after duly considering the explanations offered by the members of the Managing Committee in respect of the same [See K.Thangavelu, President and member of the Committee of Perambalur Co-operative Primary & Development Bank, Perambalur v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tituchirapalli, AIR 1976 Madras 280]. In Sahadevan,a Division Bench of this Court held that the consultation contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 32 would be effective and meaningful only if the show cause notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 32, the explanations/objections given by the committee to such show cause notice and the tentative findings arrived at by the Registrar on the various charges after considering the explanations offered by the members of the managing committee, are forwarded to the consultees. Paragraph 5 of the judgment in Sahadevan reads thus: “5. Paragraph 5 of the judgment in Sahadevan reads thus: “5. Sub-s.(2) of S.32 provides that the Registrar shall consult the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union or the State Co-operative Union as the case may be before passing an order under sub-s.(1) of S.32. It is seen from Ext.P6 that a copy of the notice dated 24.9.2003 issued under sub-s.(1) of S.32 of the Act was sent to the General Manager, Palakkad District Co-operative Bank (Financing Bank) and the Secretary, Co-operative Union, Palakkad. Apart from sending a copy of the notice, no further request or direction was made. Ext.P8 order of the Joint Registrar shows that the views of the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union were not received on time and therefore, the Joint Registrar proceeded on the assumption that they had nothing to say in the matter. Learned Single Judge, relying on the decisions in Jose Kuttiyani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies ( AIR 1982 Ker. 12 ) and Elakkal Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala ( 1997 (2) KLT 85 ) held that the mere sending of the copy of the show cause notice to the consultees would not satisfy the requirement of the provisions contained in sub-s.(2) of S.32 of the Act. According to the learned Single Judge, the notice, the reply and the tentative findings of the Joint Registrar should be forwarded to the consultees so that they can form an opinion and inform the same to the Joint Registrar. The learned Single Judge has also pointed out that the impugned order, Ext.P8, does not show that any such consultation was made. There is no case for the appellant that, apart from sending a copy of Ext.P6 notice to the Financing Bank and the Circle Cooperative Union, the Joint Registrar had forwarded to them the explanations/objections given on behalf of the Committee and the tentative findings arrived at by the Joint Registrar after considering the explanations/objections of the Committee. Therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that, apart from sending a copy of Ext.P6 to the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union, no further action was taken by the Joint Registrar as part of the consultation process contemplated under sub-s.(2) of S.32 of the Act. Therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that, apart from sending a copy of Ext.P6 to the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union, no further action was taken by the Joint Registrar as part of the consultation process contemplated under sub-s.(2) of S.32 of the Act. The consultation contemplated under sub-s.(2) of S.32 of the Act can be effective and meaningful only if the show cause notice issued under S.32(1), the explanations/objections given by the Committee to such how cause notice and the tentative findings arrived at by the Joint Registrar after considering such explanations/objections are also forwarded to the Financing Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union requesting them to offer their views on the proposal to supersede the Committee. Such a consultation process has not taken place in this case. Therefore, the provisions of sub-s.(2) of S.32 of the Act have been violated. Hence, Ext.P8 order was liable to be set aside on the second ground mentioned by the learned Single Judge.” In Sanjay Nagayach, in the context of an identical process of consultation with the Reserve Bank of India provided for in the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Apex Court has reiterated the said proposition in the following words: “23. The mere serving a copy of the show-cause notice on RBI with supporting documents is not what is contemplated under the second proviso to Section 53(1). For a meaningful and effective consultation, the copy of the reply filed by the Bank to the various charges and allegations levelled against them should also be made available to RBI as well as the action proposed by the Joint Registrar, after examining the reply submitted by the Bank. On the other hand, RBI should be told of the action the Joint Registrar is intending to take. Only then, there will be an effective consultation and the views expressed by RBI will be a relevant material for deciding whether the elected Board be superseded or not. In other words, the previous consultation is a condition precedent before the forming of an opinion by the Joint Registrar to supersede the Board of Directors or not.” Having thus understood the scope of the word “consult” and the stage at which the consultation is to be made, let us examine the question whether there was compliance of the requirements under sub-section (2) of Section 32, in the case on hand. 11. 11. The materials on record indicate that after serving Ext.P7 show cause notice on the petitioner and others and after obtaining their explanations in respect of the charges levelled against them in the show cause notice and after affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, the Joint Registrar has issued a communication to the financing bank as also to the Circle Co-operative Union concerned informing them that various irregularities were disclosed in the inspection conducted in the Bank under Section 66 of the Act; that the Managing Committee of the Bank was therefore issued a notice directing them to show cause why they shall not be superseded under Section 32 and that they have not offered satisfactory explanations to the various irregularities pointed out in the report of inspection. As per the said communication, the Joint Registrar has sought the views of the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union as to the further action to be taken in the matter. The letter dated 21.05.2019 reads thus: As seen from the extracted communication, at the time when the said communication was issued, the Joint Registrar has neither considered whether the charges levelled against the Managing Committee are correct or sustainable in law in the light of the explanations offered by the members nor taken a decision to supersede the Managing Committee of the Bank. A reading of the communication aforesaid would show that the purpose of the said communication was only to ascertain the views of the consultees as regards the further course of action to be adopted in the matter. It is seen that on 23.05.2019, both the the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union sent replies to the communication dated 21.05.2019 informing the Joint Registrar that the Managing Committee of the Bank can be superseded. The communication addressed by the Joint Registrar to the consultees later on 24.05.2019 reveals that a decision to supersede the Managing Committee of the Bank has been taken by the Joint Registrar only after he has received the response of the consultees in reply to the letter dated 21.5.2019. The communication addressed by the Joint Registrar to the consultees later on 24.05.2019 reveals that a decision to supersede the Managing Committee of the Bank has been taken by the Joint Registrar only after he has received the response of the consultees in reply to the letter dated 21.5.2019. The communication issued by the Joint Registrar in this regard on 24.05.2019 reads thus: As noted, the stand taken by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned in the writ appeal as also the stand adopted by the learned Senior Government Pleader in the appeal is that the communication addressed by the Joint Registrar to the consultees on 21.05.2019 satisfies the requirements under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. The short question therefore is as to whether the letter dated 21.05.2019 could be regarded as sufficient for compliance of the requirements in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 32. 12. Though the Joint Registrar has forwarded the copy of the notice issued to the Managing Committee as also the copies of the explanations offered by the members of the Managing Committee to the charges levelled against them in the notice to the consultees along with his communication dated 21.05.2019, as noted, the said communication does not reveal that the Joint Registrar has considered at that point of time the correctness or sustainability of the charges levelled against the members of the Managing Committee with reference to the explanations offered by the members of the Managing Committee to the show cause notice. True, there is a vague statement in the communication dated 21.05.2019 that the members of the Managing Committee has not offered satisfactory explanations for the various irregularities noted in the report of inspection under Section 66 of the Act. As noted, for compliance of the requirements in sub-section (2) of Section 32, what is expected of the Joint Registrar at that point of time is to consider the correctness or sustainability of the various charges levelled against the Managing Committee in the notice, after adverting to the explanations offered by the members of the Managing Committee and render his tentative findings as to the correctness or sustainability of the charges. He is also expected thereafter to forward the tentative findings to the consultees along with a statement of the action proposed on the basis of the same, together with copies of the notice and the explanations offered by the members of the Managing Committee, for them to form an opinion as to whether they should agree with the action proposed by the Joint Registrar. In the absence of such a course, it cannot be said that there was a proper consultation in terms of subsection (2) of Section 32. We take this view for the reason that if in a given case, there were five charges against the Managing Committee and if on consideration of the explanations offered by the Managing Committee, the Registrar finds that four out of the five charges are established, the consultees may agree with the decision of the competent authority to supersede the Committee, if the charges established are grave in nature warranting such a serious course of action. But the consultees in the said case may not, however, agree for such a serious course of action, if on consideration of the explanations offered by the managing committee, the Registrar finds that only one out of the five charges is established, if the said charge is not a grave one for which a serious course of action like supersession of the managing committee is to be adopted. In other words, if the Registrar does not render his tentative findings as to the correctness or sustainability of the charges levelled against the Managing Committee and forward the same to the consultees, the requirement of consultation mandated in terms of subsection (2) of Section 32 will not be served. Needless to say, communication dated 21.05.2019 does not satisfy the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. 13. On a query from the court, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the term of the Managing Committee superseded in terms of the order impugned in the writ petition has already expired and the matter is being pursued by the petitioner only to ensure that he does not suffer any disqualification on account of the order of supersession. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and Ext.P11 order of the Joint Registrar is quashed.