Rajan.K. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G) and Central Government Employees & Workers Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Sathish Ninan, J.
- Judgment Date
- 2023-09-30
- Court Decision / Holding
- The order of the first respondent removing the petitioner from membership is in accordance with law and warrants no interference. The writ petition is dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition dismissed; order of removal upheld.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Rajan.K.
Respondents
- Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G)
- Central Government Employees & Workers Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
- Ambares Nair R.S.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • B.S. Swathi Kumar
- • Harisankar N Unni
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sheeja C.S.
- • T. P. Pradeep
- • P.K. Sathees Kumar
- • Minikumary M.V.
- • R.K. Prasanth
- • Jijo Joseph
Case Synopsis & Summary
Rajan.K., a Central Government employee, was admitted as a member of the Central Government Employees & Workers Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. within the Trivandrum District under the society’s bye-laws which require one year of continuous service. Subsequently, he was transferred to Kochi, outside the Society’s area of operation. The third respondent moved the Joint Registrar for removal from membership on the ground that the member no longer satisfies the eligibility criteria by working outside the territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that transfer beyond the area of operation does not amount to cessation of membership, since Clause 11 of the bye-laws enumerates only death, resignation, expulsion, and retirement, and that membership, once acquired, cannot be lost merely due to relocation. The Court examined Rule 16 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, noting that (i) Rule 16(1)/(2) regulate admission, (ii) Rule 16(3) permits removal of a member who becomes ineligible, and (iii) Rule 16(4) allows the Registrar to declare cessation with opportunity of hearing. The Court held that a member who loses eligibility by transferring beyond the area ceases to satisfy bye-law requirements and can be removed under Rule 16(3)/(4). It concluded the Registrar’s removal order was legal and refused to interfere, dismissing the writ petition. The decision rests on the interpretation that transfer outside the area of operation triggers ineligibility under the bye-laws and rules, justifying removal.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that eligibility criteria in the bye-laws govern membership; transfer and shifting of residence outside the Society’s area of operation is not listed as cessation of membership. Clause 11 of the bye-laws mentions only death, resignation, expulsion, and retirement; once membership is acquired, transfer beyond the territorial jurisdiction should not result in loss of membership. Rule 16(3)/(4) empower removal when a member becomes ineligible. The absence of explicit reference to transfer within Clause 11 cannot negate removal under Rule 16. The argument emphasizes that membership continuity should be governed by the eligibility criteria and statutory rules rather than an automatic cessation under non-listed grounds.
Contentions of Respondents
The petitioner continues to be employed outside the Society’s area of operation (Trivandrum District). Eligibility for membership requires within the Trivandrum District and one year of service. When a member ceases to meet eligibility, Rule 16(3) empowers the Committee or Registrar to remove him under due process (Rule 16(4) provides Registrar’s order). The absence of an express transfer contingency in Clause 11 is not fatal to removal; the Society’s objective to confine membership to its area of operation justifies termination upon loss of eligibility.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Part Time Administrator Adat Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.R 689 and Another v. Vipin K. Hari | ILR 2023 (1) KER 121 | Positive | Cited as authority supporting the proposition that a member who loses eligibility can be removed under Rule 16(3). |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Rajan.K. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G) and Central Government Employees & Workers Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.