JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner pledged 3239 grams of gold in various loan accounts in the 2 nd respondent-Trichur Urban Co-operative Bank Limited No.87. Loans fell in arrears. Hence, the bank scheduled auction of the said gold ornaments. The petitioner had sent a notice on 27.06.2015 objecting to the auction and intention to redeem the pawns and participate in the auction. Ignoring objections of the petitioner the 2 nd respondent proceeded with the auction. The petitioner went to participate in the auction, but she was not permitted to participate in the whole of the process. The 2 nd respondent and its officials without conducting any auction made clandestine documents of an auction and gave major part of the petitioner’s ornaments to the proxies of the officials for a lower price. Moreover, the 2 nd respondent made a false claim that an amount of Rs.20,33,127/- was still due from the petitioner. 2. Aggrieved by the said illegal acts and similar malpractices in the gold loans on the part of the 4 th respondent who was the chairman of the Bank, and other officials of the Bank misusing their position as public servants, a complaint was submitted before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. A quick verification was conducted on the complaint as directed by the Special Court. A crime as V.C.No.13/17/TSR was later registered and an investigation was undertaken. However, no final report was filed even after two years, although offences under Sections 13 (1)(C) and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) were found committed by the accused therein. Owing to the delay in completing the investigation and submitting the final report, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: 1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction commanding the 1 st respondent to report the stage of investigation and the progress made as on date in V.C.13/17/TSR, in writing. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1 st respondent to complete the investigation and submit the final report in V.C.13/17/TSR expeditiously. 3. A counter affidavit was filed by the 4 th respondent justifying the auction and the procedure followed in that matter. He produced Exts.R4(A) to R4(E) together with the counter affidavit. 3. A counter affidavit was filed by the 4 th respondent justifying the auction and the procedure followed in that matter. He produced Exts.R4(A) to R4(E) together with the counter affidavit. A report of the investigating officer and later a statement were placed on record by the learned Government Prosecutor. 4. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 producing therewith Exts.P9 to P11. 5. In terms of the order of this Court dated 09.09.2024 to report as to the present status of the investigation, the learned Senior Government Pleader filed a memo dated 21.01.2025 producing therewith a report of the investigating officer. Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 in the report submitted on 21.01.2025 are extracted below: “1. It is most humbly submitted that based on a compliant as CMP 382/2016 filed by Sri.Krishnakumar A., Secretary, Janakeeyavedu, Attoor House, Puranattukara, Thrissur before the Hon'ble Court Commissioner & Special Judge Court, Thrissur, it was ordered to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry into the matter. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted 2nd the enquiry report in this regard was submitted before the Hon'ble Court and disagreeing with the findings in the Preliminary Enquiry, the Hon'ble Court had ordered to register a FIR against the respondents and an FIR was registered at VACB, Thrissur Unit on 15.09.2017 as VC-13/17/TSR U/S 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 against A1-Paulson Alappatt, Chairman, Thrissur District Urban Co-operative Bank, Thrissur, A2-Satheedevi, General Manager, TDUC Bank, Thrissur, A3-Jerome P.Thomas, General Manager, TDUC Bank, Thrissur, A4-Babu Joseph V., Junior Accountant, TDUC Bank, Thrissur, A5- Prasad R., Gold Appraiser, TDUCB, Thrissur. 2. It is submitted that the approval from the Director of VACB sanctioning to prosecute T.C Premalatha, T.N.Aravindakshan, and Sajith Thekkekara U/s 13(1)(c) (d)(ii) r/w 13(2) of PC Act & 409 & 34 of IPC, the accused persons, in the second count of allegation has been received and the prosecution sanction order is to be obtained from the Administrative Committee of the Thrissur Urban Cooperative Bank. The final report for the both count of allegation in the Vigilance Case will be submitted before the Hon. Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur soon after receiving the Prosecution Sanction Order. 3. The final report for the both count of allegation in the Vigilance Case will be submitted before the Hon. Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur soon after receiving the Prosecution Sanction Order. 3. It is submitted that on 21.03.2022, the request for prosecution sanction was forwarded to the Administrative Committee of Thrissur Urban Co-operative Bank, but it was denied and hence sanction to charge sheet the case under Sections 409 & 34 IPC before the Hon'ble Magistrate Court having jurisdiction was accorded by the Director, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram. As such, a request was submitted before the Hon'ble Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur, to transfer the FIR and connected documents to the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No. 1, Thrissur, on 08/11/2024. 4. It is submitted that the request for transfer the FIR was orally denied by the Hon'ble Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), stating that more efforts are to be done to collect the prosecution sanction order from the concerned authority. But in between this the Co-operative Society Act was amended on 07.06.2024 and vide Section 68(2) of this Act, the Registrar of Co-Operative Society can accord prosecution sanction. Hence, steps have been initiated to obtain the prosecution sanction order against the accused persons under section 68(2) of Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2023 from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, through the proper channel.” 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent and the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent. 7. It is seen that in the preliminary enquiry, the VACB reached a conclusion that there was no materials to proceed against the bank officials. However, that report was not accepted by the Special Court and that resulted in the registration of a crime as VC-13/17/TSR. Offences including under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act were alleged. The report of the investigating officer further would show that the materials collected during investigation revealed commission of that offence, but since sanction for prosecution was denied by the Managing Committee of the Thrissur Urban Co-operative Bank, no final report could be submitted before the Special Court, Thrissur. It is further averred in the report that as per the oral direction of the Special Judge, fresh steps have been initiated to obtain prosecution sanction. It is further averred in the report that as per the oral direction of the Special Judge, fresh steps have been initiated to obtain prosecution sanction. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the investigating agency has been taking a lukewarm approach and that resulted in the inordinate delay. The submission of the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent is that this Court as per the order dated 04.07.2018 [Ext.R4(E)] on recording the submission of the Special Public Prosecutor that no offence was revealed in the investigation in V.C. No. 13/2017/TSR closed Crl.M.C.No.663 of 2018, which was filed by the 4 th respondent and other incumbents. It is urged that when this Court closed the said Crl.M.C. recording such a submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, it is not proper for this Court to entertain the plea of the petitioner and grant any relief. 9. As stated, in the preliminary enquiry, the VACB reached a finding that no offence was committed. But in obedience to the direction of the Special Court, a crime was registered and investigation ensued. After a detailed investigation, the VACB found that the offences under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC were committed. At the time of passing Ext.R4(E) order, the view of the investigating agency was that there was no material to establish commission of the offence. It appears, that was a stage before conducting a detailed investigation. Therefore, closing of Crl.M.C.No.663 of 2018 does not stand in the way of considering the reliefs sought in this writ petition. 10. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent further would submit that in regard to the auction of the gold ornaments pledged by the petitioner, no offence was found committed; whereas, the finding by the VACB that the offences were committed is with respect to the second count of allegations. Considering the reliefs sought in the writ petition and as the investigation in crime No.VC-13/17/TSR was initiated upon a complaint submitted by Sri.Krishnakumar. A, in which there was an allegation about the auction of the gold ornaments of the petitioner also, there is no bar for entertaining this writ petition. 11. The administrative committee of the Thrissur Urban Co-operative Bank denied sanction for prosecution. A, in which there was an allegation about the auction of the gold ornaments of the petitioner also, there is no bar for entertaining this writ petition. 11. The administrative committee of the Thrissur Urban Co-operative Bank denied sanction for prosecution. But when the administrative committee is not the competent authority to decide whether or not a sanction is to be granted in the light of Section 68B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 the decision of the administrative committee has no legs to stand. In K.S. Xavier v. James [2025 KHC OnLine 164] , this Court considered the aforementioned question. It was held that the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is the competent authority to decide whether or not to grant sanction to prosecute the president, members of the managing committee, officers and servants of a Co-operative Society/Bank. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thrissur to take necessary steps for obtaining sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1) of the PC Act in terms of the final report in VC-13/17/TSR. Suffice it to say that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is bound by the time schedule prescribed in Section 19 of the PC Act while considering an application for sanction for prosecution.