IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **MONDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 8TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 13376 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SASIDHARAN NAIR MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE KEEZHATTINGAL RURAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK, KEEZHATTINGAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **2 RADHA,MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE KEEZHATTINGAL RURAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK, KEEZHATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),CHIRAYANKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **3 THE KEEZHATTINGAL RURAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.T 1540 KEEZHATTINGAL P.O., CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** - **ASHOKAN, S/O MADHAVAN, PALAVILA HOUSE** - **Additional ELAPPURAM, KEEZHATTINGAL P.O.,** - **R4: KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPELADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.6931/2014 DATED 21.01.2019** **BY ADVS. SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI D SOMASUNDARAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT POOJA SURENDRAN SRI.P.N.MOHANAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.01.2019, THE COURT ON 28.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** kkj -:2:- WP(C).No. 13376 of 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging exhibit P6 order by which the first respondent has found that they were disqualified from continuing as members of the third respondent co-operative bank. The third respondent is a society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules thereunder. 2. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner was admitted as an A class member of the society on 04.04.2005. At the time of his admission, he has paid the admission fee and the share value, for becoming entitled to be a member of the society. Accordingly, he was issued with an identity card also. Exhibits P1 and P1(a) are copies of his identity card and the receipt for the payment made by him. The second petitioner was admitted as an A class member on 08.04.2005. Exhibits P2 and P2(a) are photostat copies of her identity card and receipt for the payment made. 3. The petitioners had contested as candidates in the election held in 2008 to the Managing Committee of the society and were elected. On the expiry of their term of office, a fresh ## -:3:- WP(C).No. 13376 of 2014 notification for conduct of election was issued by the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission on 06.10.2013. At the said election, they were re-elected. A copy of the relevant extract of the minutes of the Returning Officer is exhibit P3. While so, they were issued with exhibit P4 notice requiring them to show cause as to why they should not be disqualified from holding office as members of the Managing Committee, since their admission as A Class members was not in order. They submitted their detailed explanation to exhibit P4, as evident from exhibit P5. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted and the first respondent issued an order, exhibit P6, on 19.05.2014 disqualifying the petitioners from holding office as members of the Managing Committee. It is aggrieved by the said order that this Writ Petition is filed. 4. As per exhibit P4, the first respondent has found that though they had remitted an amount of Rupees fifty each at the time of their admission to the membership of the society, the petitioners had actually remitted the amount towards grant of a C Class membership. As per the bye laws of the third respondent, only A class members have the right to vote and to be elected to the Managing Committee. It has been found in -:4:- WP(C).No. 13376 of 2014 exhibit P6 that the petitioners have not been admitted to A Class membership of the society. Therefore, they have been disqualified by the first respondent. 5. According to Advocate P.C. Sasidharan who appears for the petitioners, his clients were admitted to the membership of the society in the year 2005. They were elected to the Managing Committee in 2008 and they have served out their full term of office. They were elected again in the present election. However, they have been disqualified under Rule 44(1)(j) of the Act. It is contended that, a member can be removed only under Rule 16(3). According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are persons who were admitted to the membership of the society in the year 2005. There has never been any challenge against their membership at any time, till date. They were elected in the year 2008. There was no election petition filed challenging their election. It is therefore contended that, they could have been removed only in accordance with the procedure stipulated by section 3 of the Rules. Such a procedure should have preceded the invocation of Rule 44(1)(j). 6. The Special Government Pleader responds to the above contentions by pointing out that, Rule 44(2) confers sufficient -:5:- WP(C).No. 13376 of 2014 power on the first respondent to disqualify a person where he ceases to be a member of the society. According to the learned counsel, an examination of the records of the society revealed that, the petitioners were granted only C class memberships. Therefore, they were ineligible to be the members of the Managing Committee. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in **Gopalan Nair v. State of Kerala** [2003 (1) KLT 1008] to contend that, Rule 44(2) confers sufficient powers to disqualify a person who ceases to be a member of the society. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. 7. One Sri. Ashokan who had made a complaint on 22.01.2014 against the petitioners to the first respondent, which is shown as reference No.1 in exhibit P6 has got himself impleaded as the additional 4[th] respondent. He has also filed a counter affidavit. According to the counsel for the additional 4[th] respondent Sri. P.N.Mohanan, the application forms submitted by the petitioners for membership of the third respondent shows that they had applied only for C Class memberships. It is contended that receipts for payments produced by the petitioners are not genuine. At the relevant time, receipts of the -:6:- WP(C).No. 13376 of 2014 society were being printed in Malayalam. Since the petitioners had applied for membership as C Class members only and were granted membership only as such, they were not eligible to be members of the Managing Committee. They had therefore been rightly disqualified as per exhibit P6. Since the said order was passed after affording them an opportunity of being heard, it is contended that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner replies to the above contentions by pointing out that Rule 44(2) deals only with disqualification detected after the election. The counsel also places reliance on the decision in **Mathew v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies** [1979 KLT 818 (DB)] and **Madanamohanan Kartha v. Elamkulam Service Cooperative Bank** [1983 KLT 640] in support of his contention. 9. Heard. A perusal of Rule 16 shows that, the said provision stipulates the conditions to be complied with for admission or membership. As per the said Rule, it is necessary for a person to apply in writing in the form stipulated by the society, followed by an approval of his application by the Managing Committee of the Society. It is also necessary for him -:7:- WP(C).No. 13376 of 2014 to fulfill all other conditions laid down by the Act, Rules and Bye laws. In accordance with the above stipulations, it is seen that the petitioners also had applied for membership of the third respondent society. Exhibit R4(a) shows that the application submitted by the petitioner was for C class membership. Exhibit R4(g) is the relevant page of the admission register that concerns with the membership of the second petitioner. It shows that though the class of her membership was initially written as 'C', the same has subsequently been corrected by overwriting. It has been noticed by the first respondent in exhibit P6 order that, in the admission register with respect to both the petitioners, the class of membership allotted to them have been corrected from C Class to A class by overwriting. The receipts produced by the petitioners along with this Writ Petition have also been found to be not genuine. No decision of the Managing Committee admitting them to the membership of the society has also been found recorded by the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent has found that they have not become members of the society. It is worth noticing that, exhibit P6 has been passed after putting the petitioners on notice, after hearing them and after perusing the records of the society. Nothing has been -:8:- WP(C).No. 13376 of 2014 brought to my notice to warrant a conclusion that, the findings of the first respondent are erroneous in any manner. 10. The contention put forward is that, since the order exhibit P6 has been passed under Rule 44(1)(j), the same is liable to be set aside. It is worth noticing that the basic requirement that a person has to satisfy is to be a member of the society. The petitioners are persons who were not admitted to the membership of the society. The records only show that they had applied for the grant of a C Class membership and had remitted the fees for such membership. It may be true that, they are persons who were earlier elected and who had functioned as members of the Managing Committee. That cannot and does not clothe them with the basic criterion of eligibility that they should be members of the society. The authorities have taken action when the mistake was pointed out by the additional 4[th] respondent. Exhibit P6 has been passed after issuing notice to and hearing the petitioners. Therefore, the principles of natural justice have been complied with. The decisions on which reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioners are cases where a disqualification was incurred subsequent to the election. In the present case, the disqualification of the petitioners was in -:9:- WP(C).No. 13376 of 2014 existence throughout. In the absence of membership of the society, they are rank outsiders and persons who have nothing to do with the management of the society. Any permission for them to continue either as members of the society or as members of the Managing Committee would not be in the interests of either the society or the regular members thereof. Therefore, the first respondent has rightly issued exhibit P6 order disqualifying them. 11. For the foregoing reasons, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order exhibit P6 or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **K.SURENDRA MOHAN** ## **JUDGE** kkj // true copy // PA to Judge -:10:- WP(C).No. 13376 of 2014 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P1(A) : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF SHARE VALUE EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P2(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF SHARE VALUE EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE RETURNING OFFICER EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.02.2014 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.05.2014 EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER** **// true copy //** **PA to Judge**