High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-20WP(C) No. 6223/2013 is allowed; Ext. P7 is set ...

Pazhayannoor Grama Panchayat Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Thrissur; Mini Reji v. Elanadu Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd & Others

Case / Petition Number:6223/2013; 5143/2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-10-20
Court Decision / Holding: The court held that Ext. P7 (the Joint Registrar’s order) was impermissible as the Joint Registrar cannot exercise jurisdiction under Rule 176 in a disciplinary action. WP(C) No. 6223/2013 was allowed and Ext. P7 set aside. WP(C) No. 5143/2015 was also set aside; however, the court clarified that any order of the competent Forum would inure to Mini Reji if she is ultimately entitled to the post, subject to other criteria. The court directed that if Mini Reji pursues the alternative remedy, the period of limitation should be computed excluding 05.03.2013 (filing date of WP(C) No. 6223/2013) to the date of receipt of the judgment, and if she files within three weeks from receipt of judgment, the competent Authority should dispose of the matter expeditiously but not later than four months thereafter. All rival contentions were left open for future proceedings in the alternative forum.
Final Disposition: WP(C) No. 6223/2013 is allowed; Ext. P7 is set aside. WP(C) No. 5143/2015 is set aside, with liberty to Mini Reji to pursue the alternative remedy; computation of limitation to be in line with the court’s directions (excluding 05.03.2013 to judgment date). The competent forum is to dispose the matter expeditiously, not later than four months, after initiation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Pazhayannoor Grama Panchayat Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd No.R.1195, represented by its President
Mini Reji, W/o.Reji M.M, Mekkattil House, Chuvannamannu P.O, Vazhukump Para, Thrissur District

Respondents

Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Thrissur-680 001
The Elanadu Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd No.R1195, represented by its Honorary Secretary, Elanad P.O., Thrissur 680586
The Board of Directors of The Elanadu Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd No.R1195, represented by its President, Elanad P.O., Thrissur 680586
The Disciplinary Sub Committee of The Elanadu Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd No.R1195, represented by its Chairman, Elanad P.O., Thrissur 680586
Smt.Mini Reji, W/o Reji, Mekkattil House, Chuvannamannu P.O., Pattikkad, Thrissur 680652 (in WP(C) No.6223/2013)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.P.N.Mohanam
• Smt.I.Vinayakumari
• Sri.T.R.Harikumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt.Parvathy K. - GP
• Sri.T.R.Harikumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two writ petitions, WP(C) Nos. 6223 of 2013 and 5143 of 2015, were heard together before a single judge of the Kerala High Court. The first petition, filed by Pazhayannoor Grama Panchayat Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd, challenged an order (Ext. P7) of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies that rescinded a disciplinary penalty imposed on Smt. Mini Reji following a disciplinary inquiry. The Society contends that the Joint Registrar exceeded jurisdiction under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (KCS Rules) by intervening in a disciplinary process and voiding the punishment, and that Ext. P7 is illegal. In the second petition, Mini Reji seeks to prevent the Elanadu Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society from filling the post of Secretary after her dismissal, and to pursue remedies under the KCS Rules. The court, noting that the Joint Registrar lacks authority to entertain such disciplinary reviews under Rule 176, cites the principle laid down in several precedents (Prakasini v. Joint Registrar; Raveendran v. State of Kerala; Kanjoor Service Co-operative Bank v. Joint Registrar) and declares Ext. P7 impermissible. The judge allows WP(C) No. 6223/2013, sets aside WP(C) No. 5143/2015, and directs consideration of an alternative remedy with appropriate limitation considerations, leaving all contentions open for future proceedings. The decision clarifies the boundaries of official interference in internal disciplinary actions within co‑operative societies.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (KCS Rules) Rule 176

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

WP(C) No.6223/2013 (Pazhayannoor Grama Panchayat Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd): The petitioner argued that the Joint Registrar had no jurisdiction to intervene in a disciplinary enquiry under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and to rescind the imposed penalty via Ext. P7; such action is beyond the scope of the rule and violates due process. The remedy, the petitioner contends, lies under the KCS Rules through a proper challenge, not by judicial review of the disciplinary decision. WP(C) No.5143/2015 (Mini Reji): The petitioner contends that the Elanadu Society is attempting to fill the post of Secretary after her dismissal, which should be stayed or examined via the appropriate alternative remedy; she seeks directions to prevent premature action and to ensure she has recourse under the rules, including limitation considerations while pursuing remedy. The overarching theme is to limit executive interference in disciplinary matters and to insist on a proper, rule‑based remedy process.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that the Joint Registrar cannot review or alter disciplinary outcomes under Rule 176 and that the matter ought to be resolved via the statutory route under the KCS Rules; they submit that the petitioners are seeking to bypass the established remedy channels, and that any adverse action must respect due process and the statutory timetable. The respondents emphasize adherence to the original disciplinary processes and the need for pursuing proper remedies rather than invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction to interfere with the orders.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Prakasini v. Joint Registrar	2006(1) KLT 199	Positive	The court cites this precedent affirmatively to hold that the Joint Registrar cannot exercise jurisdiction under Rule 176 in a disciplinary action, supporting the petitioner's challenge to Ext. P7.
Raveendran v. State of Kerala	2007(3) KLT 558	Positive	Cited as establishing the same principle restricting the Joint Registrar’s jurisdiction in disciplinary matters.
Kanjoor Service Co-operative Bank v. Joint Registrar	2016(3) KLT 73	Positive	Also cited to reinforce the proposition that the Joint Registrar lacks authority to interfere in the disciplinary actions under the KCS Rules.

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 Pazhayannoor Grama Panchayat Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Thrissur; Mini Reji v. Elanadu Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd & 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`** # **`PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 28TH ASWINA, 1944`** # **`WP(C) NO. 6223 OF 2013`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` PAZHAYANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH MULTI PURPOSE CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.R.1195, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.O.ELANAD-680 586, THRISSUR. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR-680 001.` - `2 SMT.MINI REJI, W/O.REJI, MEKKATTIL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU.P.O., PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR-680 652.` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SMT.PARVATHY K. - GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).5143/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC 6223/13 & 5143/15 2 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 28TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 5143 OF 2015 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` MINI REJI, W/O.REJI M.M, MEKKATTIL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O, VAZHUKKUMPARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT ``` ``` BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE ELANADU MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.R1195, REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY, ELANAD P.O., THRISSUR 680586` - `2 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ELANADU MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.R1195, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ELANAD P.O., THRISSUR 680586` ``` 3THE DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTE OF THE ELANAD MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.R1195 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ELANAD P.O., THRISSUR 680586 ``` - `4 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680001` ``` BY ADVS SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SMT.PARVATHY K. - GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).6223/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC 6223/13 & 5143/15 3 ## **`JUDGMENT`** Among the above two Writ Petitions – which have been heard together because of the similarity of factual circumstances pleaded and reliefs sought – WP(C)No.6223/2013 has been filed by ‘Pazhayannoor Grama Panchayat Multipurpose Co-operative Society’ (Society for short), assailing the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, rescinding their resolution, through which they had imposed a penalty upon the 2nd respondent therein, namely Smt.Mini Reji, consequent to a disciplinary enquiry. 2. According to the Society, the Joint Registrar could have neither intervened under the provisions of Rule 176 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCS Rules’ for short), in a disciplinary enquiry, nor interdicted the punishment imposed consequent thereto; and therefore, that Ext.P7 order of the Joint Registrar is illegal and unlawful. 3. While so, Smt.Mini Reji approached this Court through WP(C)No.5143/2015, alleging that the Society is attempting to fill WPC 6223/13 & 5143/15 4 up the post of Secretary, from which she was illegally ousted; and therefore, seeks directions against them from doing so. 4. I have heard Sri.P.N.Mohanan – learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.6223/2013; Sri.T.R.Harikumar – learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.5143/2015 and Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents in both cases. 5. I do not propose to write a detailed judgment because, by the march of time and the precedents covering the field, it is indubitable that Ext.P7 in WP(C)No.6223/2013 is impermissible, since the Joint Registrar could not have invoked his powers under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules in a disciplinary action. I am hence certain that the arguments of Sri.P.N.Mohanan made on behalf of the Society is on firm ground. 6. In fact, to a pointed question from this Court, Sri.T.R.Harikumar – learned counsel for Smt.Mini Reji, was unable to contest the afore, but argued that since this Court has admitted the afore Writ Petitions and the matters pending for nearly 10 years, it is only in the interests of justice that they be WPC 6223/13 & 5143/15 5 considered and disposed of on its merits. 7. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of Sri.T.R.Harikumar because, as has been declared affirmatively by at least three judgments, namely Prakasini v. Joint Registrar [2006(1) KLT 199]; Raveendran v. State of Kerala [2007(3) KLT 558] and Kanjoor Service Co-operative Bank v. Joint Registrar [2016(3) KLT 73], the Joint Registrar could not have invoked jurisdiction and therefore, there is no question of this Court adjudicating upon the complaint of Smt.Mini Reji, which has culminated in Ext.P7 in WP(C)No.6223/2013. I am without doubt that Smt.Mini Reji must invoke her alternative remedy under the KCS Rules; for which purpose, the period during when these matters have been pending before this Court, will have to be excluded while computing the rigour of limitation. Resultantly: a) WP(C)No.6223/2013 is allowed and Ext.P7 set aside. b) WP(C)No.5143/2015 is consequently set aside; however, making it clear that any order of the competent Forum will inure to the petitioner the post in question, if she is eventually found WPC 6223/13 & 5143/15 6 so entitled, subject to all other criteria being satisfied. c) Smt.Mini Reji – petitioner in WP(C)No.5143/2015, is left with full liberty to approach the alternative Forum against the order of dismissal; in which event, the said Forum will compute the period of limitation after excluding the period from 05.03.2013 - when WP(C)No.6223/2013 was filed, until the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Taking note of the fact that the order of dismissal of Smt.Mini Reji is dated 23.05.2012, if she is to approach the alternative Forum within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the competent Authority will dispose it of, after affording necessary opportunity to both our sides, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than f months thereafter. e) Needless to say, all contentions of the rival parties are left open to be impelled and pursued at the time when the alternative remedy is invoked by Smt.Mini Reji. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` RR ``` WPC 6223/13 & 5143/15 7 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6223/2013`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` P1:A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 12.07.2011 ``` ``` P2:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.07.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` P3:A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 15.5.2012 OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. ``` ``` P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.5.2012. ``` ``` P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.5.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` ``` P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2012 ``` ``` P7:A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2013 OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR ``` WPC 6223/13 & 5143/15 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5143/2015`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` P1:A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 12.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ``` ``` P2:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.07.2011 P3:A TRUE COPY OF HE ORDER DATED 23.05.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P4:A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H.M.2065/2012/K.DIS DATED 13.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT P5:A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 04.02.2015 PUBLISHED IN THE VEEKSHANAM DAILY DATED 05.02.2015 ```