George Kunnapuzha Kunnapuzha v. Pulladu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Pathanamthitta, and Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2016/21ST ASHADHA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 16764 of 2015 (U)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **------------------** **GEORGE KUNNAPUZHA KUNNAPUZHA HOUSE, PULLAD P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 548** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR** **RESPONDENTS:** **-----------------------** **1. THE PULLADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1375 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PULLAD P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 548** **2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 001** **3. THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 001** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 16764 of 2015 (U)** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------EXHIBIT P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CONVENOR OF THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF THE LEFT DEMOCRATIC FRONT DATED 13.3.2015 EXHIBIT P1(a): COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1** **EXHIBIT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18.3.2015 IN WPC NO.8663 OF 2015 EXHIBIT P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C.R.P. (2) 1434/15 DATED 17.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3(a): COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3. EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 19.3.2015 ALONG WITH ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 19.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION. EXHIBIT P4(A): COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.3.2015 IN WPC No.8663 OF 2015 EXHIBIT P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1 DATED 20.4.2015 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6(a): COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6. EXHIBIT P7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.4.2015. EXHIBIT P7(A): COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7. EXHIBIT P8 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.4.2015. EXHIBIT P8(A): COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIIN OF EXHIBIT P8. EXHIBIT P9 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6.5.2015. EXHIBIT P9(A): COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P9.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------EXHIBIT R2(a):- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E(I)199/2015/SCEC DATED 20.03.2015 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION.** **// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE** **rmm** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** ----------------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C). No.16764 of 2015 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of July, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare that petitioner continues to be a member of the Board of Directors of the 3[rd] respondent bank and for a further direction to the 3[rd] respondent bank to issue notice of all meeting of its Director Board to the petitioner. 2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus; petitioner is the President of the 1[st] respondent society. In his capacity as managing committee member, petitioner was nominated as the delegate of the 1[st] respondent society to the 3[rd] respondent District Co-operative Bank and in that capacity, had become a Director Board member of the 3[rd] respondent. The term of the previous committee was to expire by 19.3.2015 and the Co-operative Election Commission issued election notification fixing the date of polling as 14.3.2015. 3. According to the petitioner, in connection with the W.P.(C). No.16764 of 2015 2 untoward incident in the State Assembly during the budget presentation, a political front in the State declared harthal on 14.3.2015. The declaration came on 13.3.2015 afternoon. Immediately thereupon the Returning Officer declared that he was adjourning the election. In spite of the petitioner obtaining a letter from the Convenor of the political front, which called the harthal, stating that the area of operation of the 1[st] respondent society has been exempted from the purview of harthal, the Returning Officer remained with his stand of adjourning the election. Since the petitioner felt that the only reason behind adjourning the election, was to ensure that election is not conducted within the term of the elected committee, petitioner approached this court by filing W.P(C) No.8663/2015 seeking direction to the State Co-operative Election Commission to take emergent steps to conduct the poll to elect the managing committee of the 1[st] respondent society. In the said writ petition, this court passed an order dated 18.3.2015 directing the 3[rd] respondent to explore the possibility of appointing the petitioner and two others from W.P.(C). No.16764 of 2015 3 the existing managing committee as members of the Administrative Committee, in the wake of expiry of the term of the managing committee of the 1[st] respondent society on 19.3.2015. That part it is urged that, on 20.3.2015, Eraviperoor Unit Inspector came to the office of the 1[st] respondent society for taking charge as Part-time Administrator. On 20.3.2015 itself, 1[st] respondent society was served with proceedings dated 19.3.2015 issued by the State Co-operative Election Commission scheduling the poll to 20.8.2015. Thereupon, this court passed Ext.P5 judgment positively directing the Co-operative Election Commission to fix the date of polling before 18.4.2015, without waiting for any resolution by the Administrator, in view of the fact that the term of the managing committee expired on 19.3.2015. 4. Based on the direction contained in Ext.P5 judgment, the polling was notified and conducted on 17.4.2015 and a new committee including the petitioner was elected. The new managing committee elected the petitioner as its President and also as its delegate to the 3[rd] respondent. In spite of the W.P.(C). No.16764 of 2015 4 resolution and the communication, petitioner was not informed about the Director Board meeting of the 3[rd] respondent. Therefore, petitioner submitted a letter to the 3[rd] respondent pointing out that petitioner was not issued with notice about the Director Board meeting held on 29.4.2015 and further requesting that, he should be given notice of all future meetings. To the said request made by the petitioner, petitioner has been issued with a reply stating that, he was not issued with notice of Director Board meeting since the Joint Registrar had informed that a Part-time Administrator had been appointed for the 1[st] respondent society w.e.f. 20.3.2015. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the petitioner is nominated as the delegate of the 1[st] respondent to the Board of Directors of the 3[rd] respondent bank, petitioner has every legal right to continue as a member of the Board of Directors of the 3[rd] respondent. It is thus declining notice to the petitioner to participate in the board meeting of the 3[rd] respondent, this writ petition is filed. 5. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit W.P.(C). No.16764 of 2015 5 refuting the allegations and claims and demands made by the petitioner. Apart from the same, it is contended that the Returning Officer appointed by the Co-operative Election Commission to conduct election of the 1[st] respondent bank performed his duties without any prejudice or negligence. So far as the submissions and claims made by the petitioner in the writ petition, it is contended that petitioner is disqualified from being the delegate of the 1[st] respondent bank under Rule 46(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Society Rules, hereinafter called “the Rules”. As per rule 46(f), the delegation ceases to exist automatically when the delegate ceases to be a member of the committee which he represents. Since the term of the committee, which the petitioner represented, expired on 19.5.2015, his delegation to the 3[rd] respondent is also expired on the said date. Even the appointment of the petitioner as member of an Administrative Committee does not salvage his participation in the meetings of the 3[rd] respondent as a delegate. Therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition has no legal sustenance and it is to be dismissed. W.P.(C). No.16764 of 2015 6 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and respective counsel appearing for other respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. Per contra, learned Government Pleader contended that action of the 3[rd] respondent bank as per Ext.P9 reply is in order and the same has no illegality enabling this court to interfere with the action of the 3[rd] respondent bank. A Division Bench judgment of this court in **John v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies** [1996 (1) KLT 479] is brought to my notice in which, it is held that, a delegate sent by the primary society to the Central Society will cease to be member of the general body of the Central Society by the cessation of his membership in the managing committee of the primary society. That apart it is also held that the existing managing committee to the Central Society nominated by Administrator under Rule 44A as delegate to the Central Society, whatever position they held prior to the assumption of office by the Administrator will not revert back W.P.(C). No.16764 of 2015 7 to them on such nomination. 8. On evaluating the facts and circumstances and the law involved in the subject matter, the sole question to be considered is whether any interference in Ext.P9 issued by the 3[rd] respondent is required and whether the petitioner accordingly is entitled to represent the 1[st] respondent society before the Board of Directors of the 3[rd] respondent. A reference to Rule 44A of the Rules would be worthwhile and the same is extracted for the purpose of discussion on the issue: “ **44A. Delegate of societies in the committee to another society to be members of the committee:-** The person appointed to represent a society in any other society and vote shall be a member of the committee of the society which he represents: Provided that if the affairs of the society are managed by administrator/administrators/Administrative Committee appointed under section 28 or S.32 or S.33 of the Act, the person or persons so appointed shall have power to W.P.(C). No.16764 of 2015 8 nominate any member of the society to be its delegate in the other society and such delegate shall be eligible to vote and to be elected as a member of the committee of the other society in which he sits as a delegate if he is otherwise qualified to be a delegate under the relevant rules:” 9. The proviso to rule 44A says that if the society is managed by the administrator/administrators/Administrative Committee appointed under section 28 or S.32 or S.33 of the Act, the person or persons so appointed shall have power to nominate any member of the society to be its delegate in the other society and such delegate shall be eligible to be elected as the member of the committee of the other society in which he sits as a delegate if he is otherwise qualified to be a delegate under the relevant rules. 10. Petitioner is not having a case that consequent to the assumption of office of the 1[st] respondent by the Administrative Committee, petitioner was nominated to represent before the 3[rd] respondent. A reference to rule 46(f) of the Rules will show that a delegate of one society sitting in W.P.(C). No.16764 of 2015 9 the committee of another society shall cease to be a member of such committee if he ceases to be a member of the committee of the society which he represented. 11. Therefore, it is categoric and clear that on 19.3.2015, the term of the committee of the 1[st] respondent expired. Consequent to which, an Administrator was appointed and thereafter, an election was conducted to the 1[st] respondent society. That apart, on a reading of Ext.P9, it is categoric and clear that 2[nd] respondent has issued a notice dated 17.3.2015 to the 3[rd] respondent stating that from 20.3.2015 an Administrator is appointed to manage the 1[st] respondent society and it was thereupon that petitioner was not issued with any notice to participate in the Director Board meeting of the 3[rd] respondent. 12. On an evaluation of the facts and circumstances and reckoning the legal provisions discussed above, it is categoric and clear that there was no illegality on the part of the 3[rd] respondent to issue notice to the petitioner to participate in the Director Board meeting of the 3[rd] respondent. Therefore, W.P.(C). No.16764 of 2015 10 I do not find any legal circumstances warranting interference of this court by exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to Ext.P9 communication issued by the 3[rd] respondent bank and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** smv 13.07.2016