K. P. Karunakaran Nair and K. B. Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala and others; Ellikulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.21912 OF 2019(L)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 K.P.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, AGED 75 YEARS S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KEECHERIL HOUSE, PANAMATTOM.P.O., ELAMGULAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686522.** - **2 K.B.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 61 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN PANICKAR, KELAMANICKAL HOUSE, PANAMATTOM.P.O., ELAMGULAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686522.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THYCAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** - **3 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686001.** - **4 THE ELIKKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.158, MADUKKAKKUNNU.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686577, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.** - **5 N.K.BABU, S/O.KUMARAN, NIRAPPEL HOSE, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, ELIKKULAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686577. R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY R4 BY ADV. SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.JACOB (MANICKANAMPARAMPIL) SRI.BIMAL K.NATH, SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22268/2019(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 21912 & 22268/19 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.22268 OF 2019(G)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **ELIKULAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.K.158 MADUKKAKUNNU, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY T.M. VIMAL KUMAR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.A.ANTONY SRI.M.V.JACOB (MANICKANAMPARAMPIL) SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ( GENERAL) COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 2 N.K. BABU, S/O. KUMARANA, KARAVIKODU, KARAKALAM ROAD, NIRAPPEL HOUSE, ELIKULAM P.O., NEAR ELIKKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 686 577.** **BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH, SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).21912/2019(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 21912 & 22268/19 3 ## **JUDGMENT** These Writ Petitions have been filed-one by the Elikulam Service Co-operative Bank and the other by its members-challenging the two orders of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, both dated 16.04.2019, copies have been produced on record as Exts.P8 and P12 in WP(C)No.21912/2019 and as Exts.P7 and P9 in WP(C)No.22268/2019. 2. The petitioners in these cases allege that the impugned orders have been issued by the Joint Registrar without adverting to the judgment of this Court in WP(C)No.11399/2019, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.P7 in WP(C)No.21912/2019 and as Ext.P6 in WP(C)No.22268/2019 and that this is evident and manifest because the certified copy of this judgment was received by them much after the impugned orders had been issued. 3. The petitioners point out that the WPC 21912 & 22268/19 4 judgment of this Court in WP(C)No.11399/2019 was delivered on 10.04.2019 and a copy was received only about a week later, but that in the meanwhile, the Joint Registrar, even without waiting to receive it, issued the impugned orders on 16.04.2019. 4. The petitioners have a further contention that nowhere in the impugned orders has the said Authority considered the impact of the judgment of this Court in **Karannur Service** **Co-operative Bank v. Calicut City Service Cooperative Bank and others [2015 KHC 876]** and that this is in complete disregard of the directions of this Court in WP(C)No.11399/2019, since the said judgment was directed to be specifically adverted to, while completing the process. **==> picture [362 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** petitioners say that a large number of persons have been removed from the membership of the WPC 21912 & 22268/19 5 respondent-Bank solely consequent to the delimitation exercise and that this was not a reason for the Joint Registrar to have acted in the manner as has been done in the impugned orders. They, therefore, pray that the impugned orders be set aside. 6. Sri.K.M.Varghese-learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)No.21912/2019 and Sri.A.Antony-learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank in WP(C)No.22268/2019, in addition to the above, submit that their clients have been constrained to approach this Court also to protect the interests of the Bank since, if large of number of its members are so removed, they will be burdened to return all their fixed deposits and to terminate other financial obligations immediately. In fact, Sri.A.Antony vehemently submits that the impugned orders would lead to the perdition of the Society and that the Joint Registrar has WPC 21912 & 22268/19 6 not considered any of the relevant aspects while passing the impugned orders. Both the learned counsel, therefore, reiteratingly pray that the impugned orders be set aside. 7. The learned Senior Government Pleader- Sri.Bimal K. Nath, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, commenced his submissions contending that these Writ Petitions are not maintainable since the petitioners herein cannot represent the members of the Bank who have been removed through the impugned orders. He, however, concedes that while issuing the impugned orders the certified copy of the judgment of this Court in WP(C)No.11399/2019 had not been received and therefore, that the Joint Registrar could not understand the directions of this Court therein. He says that, however, as is clear from the impugned orders, the representation of the petitioners in WP(C)No.21912/2019 had been considered and WPC 21912 & 22268/19 7 therefore, that though the judgment of this Court in WP(C)No.11399/2019 had not been looked into, it would cause no prejudice to either of the petitioners. 8. On the merits of the contentions against the impugned orders, Sri.Bimal K. Nath submits that, as is clear therefrom, the members involved have been removed from the membership of the Bank for various reasons and not confined merely to the fact that their area of residence had been altered on account of the delimitation exercise. He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be left uninterdicted. 9. Even when I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader on the afore lines, I cannot find these Writ Petitions to be not maintainable, since, as stated by Sri.A.Antony, removal of the large number of members from the petitioner-Bank certainly prejudices it and will cause huge financial burden on it thus WPC 21912 & 22268/19 8 leading to its deracination. Thus the Bank certainly obtains the locus to maintain WP(C)No.22268/2019. That said, I am also equally certain that I cannot grant imprimatur to the impugned orders for the singular reason that it is conceded that they were issued even before the directions of this Court in the judgment in WP(C)No.11399/2019 had been received. 10. In fact, it is undisputed that the impugned orders were issued merely four days after the judgment in WP(C)No.11399/2019 had been delivered by me and it is also available from the records that the certified copy of the said judgment was ready only after the date of the impugned orders. Indubitably, thus, the factum of the judgment of this Court not having been seen or considered by the Joint Registrar is without contest and therefore, for that sole reason, I cannot find the impugned orders to be WPC 21912 & 22268/19 9 worthy of my favour. 11. That apart, the question whether the ratio declared by this Court in **Karannur** **Service Co-operative Bank** (supra) had been considered by the Joint Registrar is also equally relevant because there is not a whisper in the impugned order as to the consideration of the matter from that angle either. This is vital because, it is the specific case of the petitioner-Bank that none of the members mentioned in the impugned orders can be construed to be outside the area of operation of the Bank merely because the delimitation exercise had carved out certain extents of their approved area of operation to other constituencies; thus asserting that the ratio in **Karannur** (supra) applies to these cases in its full force. 12. I am consequentially of the firm view, notwithstanding the objections of the learned WPC 21912 & 22268/19 10 Senior Government Pleader relating to the locus of the petitioners in maintaining these Writ Petitions, to set aside the impugned orders so as to enable the Joint Registrar to act in terms of the directions of this Court in the judgment in WP(C)No.11399/2019 and then to take a final decision thereon, after following the procedure ordered therein and to then issue fresh final orders as expeditiously as is possible. These Writ Petitions are thus ordered. **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 21912 & 22268/19 11 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21912/2019 ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE| |---|---| ||RESPONDENT NO.4 SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE| ||BANK.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED| ||25.1.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER| ||NO.1.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED| ||25.1.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER| ||NO.2.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||7.12.2012 IN WPC.NO.28927 OF 2012.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED| ||10.11.2017 IN WPC.NO.34905 OF 2017.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION| ||DATED 20.3.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE| ||RESPONDENT NO.3.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||10.4.2019 IN WPC.NO.11399 OF 2019.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||16.4.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL| ||OBJECTION DATED 20.5.2019 SUBMITTED| ||BY THE PETITIONERS.| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION| ||DATED 20.5.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE| ||RESPONDENT NO.3.| |EXHIBIT P11|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||14.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT| ||NO.3.| |EXHIBIT P12|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||8.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT| ||NO.3.| WPC 21912 & 22268/19 12 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22268/2019 ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF BYE LAW OF THE PETITIONER| |---|---| ||COOPERATIVE BANK.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 25.1.2019 ISSUED| ||BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER| ||COOPERATIVE BANK.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.12.2012| ||IN WPC NO. 28927 OF 2012.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2017 IN| ||WPC NO. 34905 OF 2017.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 19.3.2019| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE| ||PETITIONER COOPERATIVE BANK BEFORE THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.4.2019 IN| ||WPC NO. 11399 OF 2019.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.4.2019| ||PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 29.5.2019| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE| ||PETITIONER COOPERATIVE BANK BEFORE THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||8.7.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.|