JUDGMENT : GOPINATH P., J. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P23 order superseding the Managing Committee of the Pulluvila Fishermen Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. No.F (T) 28 under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the “1969 Act”). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Ext.P23 is liable to be set aside on a short ground. It is submitted that there has been no consultation with the Circle Co-operative Union, which in this case is MATSYAFED, and therefore the impugned action is vitiated. It is submitted that a reading of Ext.P23 will indicate that the author of the impugned order proceeded on the basis that, despite seeking the views of the MATSYAFED, no reply/response was received and, therefore, an order of supersession was passed without having the benefit of the views of the Circle Co-operative Union. It is submitted that additional documents produced as Exts.P25 and P26 along with I.A.No.1 of 2026 will indicate that the letter forwarded to the MATSYAFED for seeking its views was itself vitiated and contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench in Johny Kachappally v. Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Thrissur and Others, 2022 (1) KHC 182 It is further submitted that, though the MATSYAFED had forwarded its reply as early as on 28.10.2024, Ext.P23 order was passed on 07.11.2024 without having the benefit of the said reply. It is submitted that, in the reply forwarded by the MATSYAFED, which is on record as Ext.P26 along with I.A.No.1 of 2026, the MATSYAFED had recommended that there was no ground for supersession of the Managing Committee. It is submitted that the term of the Managing Committee expired in the year 2025 and that, presently, the society is under the management of an Administrative Committee. It is submitted that, unless Ext.P23 order is set aside, the petitioners, who were members of the superseded Managing Committee, will stand disqualified from contesting the elections to be held to the Managing Committee. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that a reading of Ext.P23 order will indicate that all the circumstances were considered by the fourth respondent, who is also the Registrar of Fishermen Co-operative Societies. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that a reading of Ext.P23 order will indicate that all the circumstances were considered by the fourth respondent, who is also the Registrar of Fishermen Co-operative Societies. It is submitted that, though the views of the MATSYAFED were sought before passing the order of supersession, the views of MATSYAFED were not available at the time of passing of Ext.P23 order. It is submitted that this is evident from a reading of Ext.P23 itself and, therefore, Ext.P23 cannot be set aside on the ground that there was no consultation. It is further submitted that the letter of the fourth respondent seeking the views of MATSYAFED is also not contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Johny Kachappally (Supra). 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that Ext.P23 order has to be set aside for non-compliance with the procedure contemplated by the provisions of Section 32 of the 1969 Act. 4. In Johny Kachappally (Supra) , it was held as follows: “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 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 . 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 to supersede the Managing Committee of a society. The requirement in terms of subsection (2) of is therefore not a mere formality, but one to be complied with by the Registrar in its letter and spirit. 10. The requirement in terms of subsection (2) of 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. 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 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 would be effective and meaningful only if the show cause notice issued under sub-section (1) of , 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. 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 subs.(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. 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 Cooperative 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. 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. xxx 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 . 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 will not be served. Needless to say, communication dated 21.05.2019 does not satisfy the requirements of sub-section (2) of of the Act.” It is clear from a reading of Ext.P25 that the letter of the fourth respondent seeking the views of MATSYAFED was not in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Johny Kachappally (Supra) . That apart, though Ext.P26 reply was submitted by the MATSYAFED on 28.10.2024, Ext.P23 order appears to have been passed without taking note of its contents. Therefore, on the ground that there has been no effective consultation with the Circle Co- operative Union (which, in the facts of this case, is MATSYAFED), Ext.P23 order cannot be sustained. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P23 order will stand quashed. Since the term of the Managing Committee that was superseded by Ext.P23 has already expired, it is made clear that the petitioners will not face any disqualification in any ensuing election on account of Ext.P23 order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.