Karakurissi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/19TH PHALGUNA 1933 WP(C).No. 22101 of 2008 (F) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.P 1025, KARAKURISSI P.O., PIN - 678 595 PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT A.SAYID. BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PALAKKAD. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MANNARKKAD PALAKKAD. 4. N.L.JOSEPH, CHIEF PROMOTER/PRESIDENT, KARAKURISSI PANCHAYAT KARSHIKA ULPADANA SAMBHARANA SAMSKARANA VIPANANA CREDIT SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD.NO.1266, MANNARKKAD, TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. KARAKURISSI PANCHAYATH KARSHIKA ULPADANA SAMBHARANA SAMSKARANA VIPANANA CREDIT SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD.NO.1266 MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF PROMOTER. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.NISHIL.P.S. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PAUL BY ADV. SRI.M.I.JOHNSON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **W.P.(C) No. 22101/2008** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY** - **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 5.4.2008 EXT.P4 : COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 23.10.2007 OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** NIL **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** vps ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J.** ## **--------------------------W.P.(C) No. 22101 OF 2008 -------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of March, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined in section 2(oa) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The area of operation of the petitioner society is the whole of the Karakurissi Grama Panchayat in Palakkad District. Ext.P1 is a copy of the bye-laws of the petitioner society. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the registration of the fifth respondent co-operative society on 5.4.2008 within the area of operation of the petitioner society. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner society and the fifth respondent society are societies of similar type and the principal objects of both the societies are identical and therefore, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies should not have granted registration to the fifth respondent society in violation of section 7(1)(c) of the Act. It is also contended that both the societies are Primary Agricultural Credit Societies as defined in section 2(oa) of the Act and rule 15.1.A(3)(a) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules and that the procedure prescribed in rule 4 of the rules was not followed before the fifth respondent society was WPC No.22101/2008 2 registered. 2. The second respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 3.12.2008. In paragraph 3 it is stated that the petitioner society is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society classified under rule 15(1)A(3)(a) and the principal objects of the petitioner society are as set out in clause 3 of Ext.P1 bye-laws. As regards the fifth respondent society it is stated in paragraph 4 that it is classified as an Agricultural Improvement Society defined under rule 15(1)A(3)(b) of the rules. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that though some of the objects of both the societies are identical which is quite natural, as the essential object of any cooperative society is the well-being of its members; there are some vital differences regarding other objects. With reference to object No.4, it is contended that the main object of the petitioner society is to provide for the marketing of the produce of its members through marketing societies, the main object of the fifth respondent society is to procure, process and market the produce of its members by the society itself. The second respondent has also stated in the counter affidavit that the fifth respondent society was registered after the recommendation of the third respondent was considered and the second respondent was satisfied that the conditions stipulated in WPC No.22101/2008 3 section 7(1)(c) of the Act were complied with. Respondents 4 and 5 have sworn to a counter affidavit dated 8.11.2008 reiterating the contentions raised by the second respondent. Relying on the decisions of this Court in **Kunju Kunju v. State of Kerala** (1971 KLT 350) and ## **Kasaragod Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank v. State of Kerala** (1976 KLT 437) it is contended that the petitioner society is not entitled to maintain the writ petition challenging the registration of the fifth respondent society. 3. I heard Sri.V.M.Kurian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.D.Somasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Sebastin Paul, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the principal objects of the two societies are similar namely, to market the agricultural produce of its members and to advance loans to its members, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies erred in registering the fifth respondent society within the area of operation of the petitioner society. The learned counsel also contended that the application submitted by the fifth respondent society for registration was processed and registration granted in haste without following the WPC No.22101/2008 4 procedure prescribed in rule 4 of the rules and therefore for that reason also, the registration granted to the fifth respondent society is liable to be interfered with. 4. Per contra, Sri.D.Somasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Sebastin Paul, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 contended that though some of the objects of the fifth respondent society are identical to the objects of the petitioner society, which is quite common in almost all societies, the principal object for which the fifth respondent society was formed is to procure, process and sell the agricultural produce of its members. With reference to Annexure 1 of Ext.P2 bye-laws of the fifth respondent society, it is contended that none of the objects therein are the objects of the petitioner society and therefore by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the societies are of similar type. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended relying on Ext.P2 bye-laws and the objects set out therein that the fifth respondent society is an Agricultural Improvement Society and not a service co-operative bank like the petitioner society the principal object of which is to undertake agricultural credit activities and to provide loans for agricultural purposes and that the fifth respondent society cannot be said to be a Primary Agricultural WPC No.22101/2008 5 Credit Society as defined in section 2(oa) of the Act. The learned counsel contended that in such circumstances it cannot be said that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies registered another society of a similar type within the area of operation of the petitioner society when he granted registration to the fifth respondent society. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. The fact that the petitioner society is a service co-operative bank and consequently a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined in section 2(oa) of the Act is not in dispute. The petitioner society has no case that the fifth respondent society is a service co-operative bank. There is no material forthcoming to show that the fifth respondent society is a service co-operative bank or that it is a service co-operative society or farmers service co-operative bank or a rural bank. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has no case that the fifth respondent society is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society like the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner society and the fifth respondent society are societies of a similar type. That apart, Primary Agricultural Credit Societies are classified under rule 15 (1)A(3)(a) along with Regional Banks, Rural Banks, Farmers Service Co-operative Banks and Urban Co-operative Banks. Agricultural Improvement Societies are classified under rule 15(1)A(3)(b) and are WPC No.22101/2008 6 grouped along with Urban Co-operative Societies and Employees Credit Societies. It is after registration of a society that the Registrar classifies the societies into one or other of the types mentioned in rule 15 of the rules having regard to the principal object provided in the bye-laws. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has sworn to an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner society is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society while the fifth respondent society is an Agricultural Improvement Society. That apart, a comparison of the objects for which both the societies are formed, will establish beyond doubt that the object for which the fifth respondent society is formed is different from the object of the petitioner society. As stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, a mere look at Annexure 1 to Ext.P2 bye-laws will cut at the root of the case set out by the petitioner that the objects of the two societies are identical or similar. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to the registration of the fifth respondent society on the ground that it is a society of a similar type as the petitioner society. If that be so, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that procedure prescribed in rule 4 of the rules was not followed. The petitioner has also no case that the application submitted by the fourth respondent was not in accordance with the Act or the rules or that the bye-laws set out in WPC No.22101/2008 7 Ext.P2 are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the rules. In such circumstances, merely for the reason that the application submitted by the fourth respondent for registration of the fifth respondent society was expeditiously disposed of and registration granted, is not a reason to hold that the registration of the fifth respondent society is not in order. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit stated that registration of the fifth respondent society was granted after he was satisfied that the conditions stipulated in section 7(1)(c) of the Act were complied with and that he had before granting registration considered the recommendations made by the third respondent. I accordingly hold that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN,** ## **(JUDGE)** vps WPC No.22101/2008 8 WPC No.22101/2008 9