High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition dismissed; disqualification uphel...

Ranjith T. Bhaskar v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.22002 of 2023

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

Rule 44(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies RulesRule 44(1)(c)(i)Rule 44(2)(a) proviso

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 NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Jalaja Gopan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kollam and Others2022 (3) KHC 552PositiveFull 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

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 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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 13TH ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 22002 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** RANJITH T. BHASKAR AGED 47 YEARS S/O K.E. BHASKARAN, THAIKUDIYIL HOUSE, NJARAKKATTKARA, KADAVOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM,, PIN - 686671 BY ADV N.A.SHAFEEK ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 2 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) OFFICE OF JOINT REGISTRAR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030 3 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF JOINT REGISTRAR FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686671 4 KADAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1882 KADAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686671, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 5 THE POTHANICAD BHAVANA NIRMANA SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD.NO. E-708, POTHANICAD P.O., ERNAKULAMPIN - 686671, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. W.P.(C) No.22002 of 2023 -: 2 :- *6 SOJAN THOMAS AGED 47 YEARS, S/O THOMAS, PAYEKKAL (H), KOLAPPURAMKARA, PAIGOTTUR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM- 686671 ## *** (ADDL R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/07/23 IN IA/1/23 IN WP(C) 22002/23)** BY ADVS. S.SREEDEV P.J.MATHEW EBIN MATHEW AKHILA SHOJI ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RONY JOSE LEO LUKOSE KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY DERICK MATHAI SAJI ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GOVT. PLEADER SMT. RESMI THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **SATHISH NINAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.22002 of 2023** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5[th] day of October, 2023** **==> picture [116 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Order under Rule 44(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules disqualifying the petitioner from the Managing Committee of the 4[th] respondent Society, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was elected to the Committee on 09.02.2020. He was the surety to a loan availed by one Mr.Sijo Jose who is a member of the Society. The principal borrower defaulted in the repayment of the loan. Finding that in spite of a demand made, the petitioner failed to clear the liability within one month thereof, the second respondent as per the impugned order held that the petitioner stands disqualified in terms of Rule 44(1)(c) of the Rules. W.P.(C) No.22002 of 2023 -: 2 :- 3. I have heard the learned counsel on either side. 4. The disqualification of a member of the Committee as provided under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) reads thus:- _“(c)(i) is in default to the society or to any other society in respect of any loan or loans taken by him or loan in which he had stood surety, for such period, as is prescribed in the byelaws of the society concerned or in any case for a period exceeding three months or is a defaulter to the society or to any other society.”_ As per the proviso to Rule 44(2)(a), such disqualification will accrue only after expiry of one month from the date of receipt of demand notice issued by the Society requiring payment of the amount. The proviso reads thus:- _“Provided further that the disqualification under subclause (i) of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to be accrued only after expiry of a period of one month from the_ W.P.(C) No.22002 of 2023 -: 3 :- _date of receipt by the member concerned of a notice from the society demanding him to clear off the defaulted amount specified therein and he fails to remit or cause to remit the amount within the said period.”_ Notice requiring the petitioner to pay off the defaulted amount was issued to the petitioner on 13.07.2022, through registered post. As per proviso to 44(2)(a) referred to above, he ought to have cleared the liability within one month from the date of receipt of notice failing which he becomes disqualified. The liability was settled by the borrower only on 23.01.2023 ie. beyond the period stipulated. Therefore, the petitioner has incurred the disqualification. Once disqualification has occurred, subsequent payment will not efface the same or restore his membership; it has been held so by a Full Bench of this Court in _**Jalaja Gopan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kollam and Others 2022 (3) KHC 552.**_ The relevant portion of which reads W.P.(C) No.22002 of 2023 -: 4 :- ## thus :- _“. . . . . Needless to say, if the member fails to remit or cause to remit the said amount before the expiry of the period specified therein, the would forfeit the benefit of the deeming provision and the disqualification would stand revived on the expiry of the period specified in the notice issued in terms of the proviso. If the disqualification revives on the expiry of one months from the date of receipt of the notice, proceedings under R.44(3) can be initiated at any time thereafter, notwithstanding whether he remits the defaulted amount at any time subsequent to the expiry of the period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice specified in the provisos. In other words, the person concerned need not continue to be a defaulter on the date of initiation of proceedings under R.44(3). If it is held that a member of the committee should be a defaulter as on the date of initiation of proceedings under R.44(3), the requirement in the provisos that the defaulted amount shall be remitted within one month from the date of receipt by the member concerned of the notice referred to therein, would be meaningless, for such an interpretation would imply that one need not have to make the payment of the defaulted amount within the time stipulated in the notice provided for in the provisos.”_ W.P.(C) No.22002 of 2023 -: 5 :- 5. In the light of the above, the second respondent was right in holding that the petitioner is disqualified to be a member. Ext.P3 order of the second respondent warrants no interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- **SATHISH NINAN JUDGE** kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22002/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.01.2023 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.ARGKGM/35/2023UI(1) DATED 30.01.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)146/2023K-DIS DATED 21.06.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.CRP(1) 146/2023 DATED 25.03.2023 -----