High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit appeal dismissed; no costs.

Nedumon Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G) and others

Case / Petition Number:W.A.No.1545 of 2014
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V. Chitambaresh
  • Sathish Ninan
Judgment Date
2018-07-16
Court Decision / Holding
The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition
Writ appeal dismissed; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Nedumon Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Respondents

  • Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G)
  • Binu S. Varghese
  • P.K. Murali

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. N. Mohanan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K. S. Mohamad Hashim

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ appeal challenges Ext.P3, an order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies rescinding a resolution of the Nedumon Service Co-operative Bank’s Managing Committee dated 17.04.2014 that enrolled 485 persons as bank members. The order stems from an inquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and an inspection under Section 66(2), which disclosed irregularities in the membership enrolment process. The bank contends that Ext.P3 violates natural justice under Rule 16(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, since individuals allegedly found ineligible were not given a proper hearing. It also argues that the remedy lies under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act via a government appeal, not a writ petition, and that the 255 members enrolled (out of 485) and others should have been given due process. The respondents submit that the order was issued under Rule 176, based on a reasoned report and show-cause notice with opportunity of hearing, and that Rule 16(4) governs removals of members, not enrollment decisions that were rescinded. The court clarified that issues of fact arise on appeal, not via writ, and held that the order could be challenged only through the statutory remedy. It affirms the earlier judgment in Nedumon Bank’s case for different reasons and dismisses the writ appeal with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, Section 65Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, Section 66(2)Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, Rule 176Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, Rule 16(4)Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, Section 83(1)(j)Constitution of India, Article 226

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Generalia specialibus non derogant (special law prevails over general law)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant-bank contends Ext.P3 is ultra vires the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act as it purportedly rescinds enrollment of prospective members without following the prescribed procedure. It relies on Rule 16(4) to demand a hearing before removing a member and argues that the process infringes natural justice. The bank further contends that remedies under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act via a government appeal are available, and that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot bypass that statutory remedy. The petitioners highlight unexplained enrollment of 230+ members and the election-time motive claimed by the management, asserting lack of due process and procedural safeguards. They submit that findings of fact were improper for writ review and that Ext.P3 is unjustifiably devised to undo the bank’s enrollment exercise.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend Ext.P3 as a valid exercise of the Joint Registrar’s power under Rule 176, supported by an inquiry under Section 65 and an inspection under Section 66(2), which revealed irregularities in enrollment. They argue that Rule 16(4) concerns removal of members, not enrollment actions, particularly where a show-cause notice and hearing were provided. They maintain that Section 83(1)(j) provides an appellate remedy and that a writ under Article 226 is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging findings of fact. The bank’s challenge is described as a collateral attack on a quasi-judicial order, and the court is urged to respect the statutory framework and the government remedy, especially since the order rescinds enrollment rather than existing membership, and the special statute does not require disregarding established procedures absent fault in law.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Nedumon Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others2014 KHC 5024PositiveThe court confirms and relies on the earlier judgment in the Nedumon Bank matter, applying its reasoning to uphold the order against the bank’s challenge.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Nedumon Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G) and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1940 W.A.No.1545 of 2014 IN WPC.No.17253/2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-08-2014 IN WP(C).NO.17253/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: NEDUMON SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2720, EZHAMKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 556, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS: 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), PATHANAMTHITTA-691 556. 2. BINU S. VARGHESE, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, NEDUMON P.O., EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR. 3. P.K.MURALI, KAVINTEKIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, NEDUMON P.O., EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR. R1 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMAD HASHIM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.07.2018, THE COURT ON 16.07.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA1545/2014 ## APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.8.2014 IN WP(C).NO.17253/2014. -TRUE COPY- PS TO JUDGE “C.R.” ## V. CHITAMBARESH & SATHISH NINAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ## W.A.No. 1545 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16[th] day of July, 2018 ## Judgment ## Chitambaresh, J. - We confirm the judgment in Nedumon Service Co operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others [2014 KHC 5024] for altogether different reasons as enumerated below. 2. Ext.P3 order of the Joint Registrar rescinding the resolution dated 17.04.2014 of the managing committee deciding to enroll 485 persons as members of the bank was impugned in the writ petition. The same was on the basis of an enquiry conducted under Section 65 of the Kerala Co- W.A.No.1545/2014 -: 2 :- operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short) by the Assistant Registrar as directed. The enquiry was followed by an inspection under Section 66(2) of the Act and the report therein revealed that there were irregularities in the decision to admit members in the bank. The allegation was that the decision to enroll 485 persons was taken without receiving proper application forms or making due enquiries regarding their eligibility as members. It is a fact conceded that only 255 out of the 485 persons enrolled as members and no explanation was forthcoming about the non enrollment of the remaining. The learned single Judge held that even they were not validly admitted and that the exercise on the eve of the expiry of the term of the managing committee was with an eye on the forthcoming election. 3. Ext.P3 order rescinding the resolution has evidently been passed under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for short) by the Joint Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar. The Joint W.A.No.1545/2014 -: 3 :- Registrar has found that the resolution dated 17.04.2014 is ultra vires of the object of the bank and is against the provisions of the Act, Rules and bye-laws. The same was preceded by a show cause notice and an opportunity of personal hearing to the bank who cannot therefore complain of violation of the principles of natural justice. We find that Ext.P3 order is rested on a report gathered after an enquiry conducted under Section 65 of the Act followed by an inspection under Section 66 of the Act. There arise many factual disputes on the report which can be gone into only in an appeal filed to the government under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act assailing Ext.P3 order of the Joint Registrar. The jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked by the bank challenging the findings of fact rendered by the Joint Registrar in exercise of the powers under Rule 176 of the Rules. 4. The bank heavily relied on Rule 16(4) of the Rules to contend that the persons found ineligible to be members should have been afforded a personal opportunity to state W.A.No.1545/2014 -: 4 :- their objection about the proposed action. The statutory provision is as follows: “(4) Where a member of a society becomes ineligible to continue as such, the Registrar may of his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of the society or by the financing bank, by an order in writing declare that he has ceased to be a member of the society from the date of his order. The Registrar shall give such person an opportunity to state his objection, if any, to the proposed action and if the person wishes to be heard, he shall be given an opportunity to be heard before passing an order as aforesaid.” (emphasis supplied) The infraction of the above rule will certainly entitle a member as defined under Section 2(l) of the Act to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. But none of the 255 members who were admitted to the bank or the remaining who were decided to be enrolled had filed the writ petition from which the writ appeal arises. The members are W.A.No.1545/2014 -: 5 :- persons who joined in the application for the registration of the bank or admitted to membership thereafter and are distinct from the bank or a Society. The bank cannot bypass the statutory remedy under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act alleging infraction of Rule 16(4) of the Rules which the members alone can urge in a writ petition directly. 5. It was finally contended that the general power to rescind a resolution under Rule 176 cannot be invoked when there is a specific power under Rule 16(4) of the Rules to remove a member of the bank. But what was rescinded by Ext.P3 order is the decision to enroll new members and not the removal of an existing member for which alone the procedure under Rule 16(4) of the Rules could be resorted to. The principle that special law will prevail over the general law - generalia specialibus non derogant - cannot have any application to the facts of this case. We do not find any ground to upset the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed challenging Ext.P3 order of the Joint W.A.No.1545/2014 -: 6 :- Registrar rescinding the resolution of the bank. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE Sd/SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE ncd-sha/120718