Ranjith T. Bhaskar v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) & Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- The Hon’ble Justice Sathish Ninan
- Judgment Date
- 2023-10-05
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition dismissed; disqualification upheld against the petitioner.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Ranjith T. Bhaskar
Respondents
- Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)
- Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General)
- Assistant Registrar (General)
- Kadavoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (No.1882) Kadavoor
- Pothanicad Bhavana Nirmana SahakaraNa Sangam Ltd.
- Sojan Thomas (impleaded)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • N.A. Shafeeq (Adv)
Counsels for Respondents
- • S. Sreedev
- • P. J. Mathew
- • Ebin Mathew
- • Akhila Shoji
- • Enoch David
- • Simon Joel
- • Rony Jose
- • Leo Lukose
- • Karol Mathews
- • Sebastian Alencherry
- • Derick Mathai
- • Saji
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a writ petition challenging an order under Rule 44(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules disqualifying the petitioner from the Managing Committee of the Kadavoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petitioner, elected to the Committee on 09.02.2020, stood as a surety for a loan taken by fellow society member Sijo Jose. The principal borrower defaulted, and despite a demand, the defaulting liability remained unpaid beyond the period prescribed in the byelaws; a notice demanding payment was issued on 13.07.2022. The liability was settled by the borrower on 23.01.2023, which is after the expiry of the one-month cure period specified in the proviso to Rule 44(2)(a). The impugned order held that the petitioner became disqualified under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) due to default in payment, and the disqualification “accrues” after the expiry of the cure period. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing perhaps the statutory interpretations or procedures, but the court relied on the proviso and jurisprudence that disqualification revives once the prescribed period expires and can be pursued under Rule 44(3). The judge upheld the respondent’s position, citing Jalaja Gopan (Full Bench) to support the revivability of disqualification. The writ petition is dismissed, and the second respondent’s order warrants no interference.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Deeming provision (proviso to Rule 44(2)(a))
- Doctrine of revival of disqualification as clarified by Jalaja Gopan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kollam and Others, 2022 (3) KHC 552
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner challenged the order disqualifying him under Rule 44(3), arguing that the disqualification under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) accrues only after a prescribed cure period and that payment of the defaulted amount after the expiry of the period cannot validate the order. The petitioner also relied on established interpretations to contend that revivability of disqualification should be carefully scrutinized and that procedural requirements be observed; however, the argument as presented in the document is concise and anchored on the interpretation of the deeming provisions and the proviso.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that the default triggers the disqualification under Rule 44(1)(c)(i), and the proviso to Rule 44(2)(a) deems accrual to have occurred after the expiry of the one-month period from the notice. Since the default was not cleared within the prescribed period, the disqualification accrued and could be revived/triggered under Rule 44(3). The reliance on Jalaja Gopan (Full Bench) supports that a member’s disqualification can be pursued under Rule 44(3) even if payment occurs after the stated cure period.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jalaja Gopan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kollam and Others | 2022 (3) KHC 552 | Positive | Full Bench decision cited to support the proposition that the deeming provision relates to accrual of disqualification after the notice period and that proceedings under Rule 44(3) can be initiated subsequently; the decision is used to justify revival of disqualification. |
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 Ranjith T. Bhaskar v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.