The Kerala High Court has restored the elected managing committee of the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union after finding no justification for removing it without the statutory hearing and consultation process. An inquiry report obtained through RTI showed that the authorities already had the relevant material, undermining the fear that the committee would destroy or suppress it.
Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has set aside the supersession of the managing committee of the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd., directing the immediate reinstatement of its elected members in place of the administrator [Mani Viswanath and Others v. State of Kerala and Others; K. Krishnan Potty and Others v. State of Kerala and Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. allowed the connected writ appeals on November 4, 2026. It held that the circumstances did not warrant dispensing with the safeguards under Section 32(1) and (2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.
The judgment requires the Director of Dairy Development to follow those provisions and hear the appellants before passing fresh orders. It does not determine that the underlying allegations were false or prevent further proceedings conducted according to the statute.
Why the committee challenged its removal
The Director, acting as the functional Registrar of dairy co-operatives, superseded the committee on July 25, 2026. No prior show-cause notice was issued, and the State Co-operative Union was not consulted. The authority invoked Section 32(3), which permits departure from the ordinary procedure when following it is not reasonably practicable.
The committee members challenged both the material supporting the proposed action and the decision to dispense with procedural safeguards. A Single Judge dismissed their petitions on September 8, 2026, finding sufficient material concerning an allegation about ghee supplied to Sabarimala and accepting the possibility of tampering with records as a reason to proceed without prior notice.
The report obtained through RTI
The Division Bench examined the Joint Director (General)’s inquiry report dated July 16, 2026, on which the supersession decision relied. The report drew on records relating to the Pathanamthitta Dairy that the Managing Director had made available to the inquiry officer.
In paragraph 7, the Bench found that the inquiry officer had accessed ample material and that the appellants had fully cooperated by opening the records in their possession and custody to scrutiny. On those facts, the possibility of suppression or tampering did not establish the exceptional circumstances required by Section 32(3).
Paragraph 8 explains a significant difference between the records before the two benches: the Single Judge had not seen the inquiry report. The appellants obtained it through an RTI query and produced it as an additional document in the appeals.
Since the authorities already possessed material supporting their allegations, the Division Bench found no justification for presuming that the committee would destroy evidence needed for proceedings. It also said that records the appellants might use to defend themselves could not be withheld from them.
Exceptional power must remain exceptional
Section 32(1) provides an opportunity for a committee to state its objections before removal. Section 32(2) requires consultation with the financing bank and the relevant co-operative union. The Bench examined the limited exception to these requirements against earlier decisions emphasising that an elected committee should ordinarily be allowed to complete its term.
The Court relied on Rajeevan T.V. v. K.A. Sukumaran and State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach. Its reasoning requires a statutory authority to identify concrete reasons for bypassing the safeguards and to form its own opinion on objective material connected with the decision.
Immediate restoration, followed by a fresh decision
In paragraph 9, the Bench set aside both the Single Judge’s judgment and the Director’s supersession order. It directed the Director to comply with Section 32(1) and (2), afford the appellants a hearing and then pass orders.
The Bench also distinguished restoration of an elected co-operative body from reinstatement in an employer–employee dispute. Once the supersession was invalidated, the elected members were entitled to immediate restoration of the earlier position. The administrator appointed under the quashed order must therefore give way to the committee.
Case Titles: Mani Viswanath and Others v. State of Kerala and Others; K. Krishnan Potty and Others v. State of Kerala and Others
Case Numbers: W.A. Nos.1948 and 1991 of 2026
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Bench: Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K.
Judgment Date: November 4, 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:84208
Outcome: Appeals allowed; supersession set aside; immediate reinstatement ordered; fresh decision to follow statutory procedure and hearing.
