Sahadevan Madhavan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Alappuzha; Kappil Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.; Babu Chenkot

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.14468 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **SAHADEVAN MADHAVAN AGED 64 YEARS S.N VILLA,NJAKKANAL P.O., KRISHNAPURAM,ALAPPUZHA DIST** **BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL) (GENERAL),ALAPPUZHA-688 001** - **2 KAPPIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1594, KAPPIL KIZHAKKU, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-690533** - **3 BABU CHENKOT, CHITHANYA,KAPPIL EAST, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 533** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.ARUN BOSE SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.R.REJI** ## **SMT.C.S.SHEEJA-SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.14468 of 2019 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who claims to be the member of the Managing Committee of the 2[nd] respondent-Kappil Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' for short), has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 notice issued by the 1[st] respondent-Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, under Rule 44(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Rules' for short), asking to show cause why he cannot be removed from such position because he is disqualified under Rule 44(1)(i) of the KCS Rules. 2. The petitioner says that, as is clear from the allegations in Ext.P5, the Joint Registrar maintains that the petitioner is involved in the same kind of business as the Society, of which he is the Managing Committee member; and therefore, that he faces disqualification under Rule 44(1)(i) of ## **WP(C).No.14468 of 2019 3** the KCS Rules. 3. The petitioner asserts that the above allegation is factually incorrect because he has not being doing any business within the area of operation of the 2[nd] respondent-Society and therefore, that he is not liable for being disqualified under Rule 44(1)(i) of KCS Rules. He, consequently, submits that the processes under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules, as initiated through Ext.P5, is also incompetent and illegal. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.C.S.Sheeja, appearing on behalf of the official respondent, submits that Ext.P5 has been issued to the petitioner only asking him to show cause why he shall not be removed as the member of the Managing Committee of the 2[nd] respondent-Society under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules. She says that this proceeding is completely in order since the petitioner has conceded that he is engaged in the same kind of business as the ## **WP(C).No.14468 of 2019 4** Society, albeit, under the defence that he is doing it outside its area of operation. She says that this is of no consequence going by Rule 44(1)(i) of KCS Rules and that he must be automatically deemed to be disqualified under the provisions of Rule 44(1)(i) and therefore, that he is liable to be proceeded under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules. 5. Shri.R.Reji, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, submits that it is on his client's complaint that proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and that it is clear from Ext.P5 and the pleadings available in the writ petition itself that the petitioner concedes that he is engaged in the same business as the Society; and resultantly, that he is liable to be disqualified under Rule 44(1)(i) and to be removed as the member of the Society under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rule. He says, therefore, that Ext.P5 notice is without fault and that the petitioner cannot ## **WP(C).No.14468 of 2019 5** challenge the same before this Court, since it is only a show cause notice. 6. Even when I hear Shri.R.Reji and Smt.C.S.Sheeja as afore, the fact remains that Ext.P5 notice has been issued only under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules without an earlier order under Rule 44(1)(i) having been issued against the petitioner. This is pertinent because had any proceedings under Rule 44(1)(i) been initiated before Ext.P5 had been issued, then the petitioner could have challenged such proceedings, including by impelling the defences raised by him in this writ petition against such action and it is only thereafter could the question of removing him from the Managing Committee of the Society have arisen. In other words, unless the petitioner is found to be disqualified under Rule 44(1)(i) no process under Rule 44(3) could be initiated and this is clear from the judgment of this Court in _**Jayendrakumar v. Joint Registrar of Co-**_ ## **WP(C).No.14468 of 2019 6** _**operative Societies (General) [2019(2) KLT 671].**_ 7. In the afore perspective, I am certain that Ext.P5 cannot obtain the favour of this Court at this time, since it has been issued even without formal orders having been issued against the petitioner, disqualifying him under Rule 44(1)(i) of the KCS Rules. 8. Resultantly, I am left with no other option but to set aside Ext.P5; however, leaving full liberty to the competent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner under Rule 44 (1)(i) of the KCS Rules and if he is found disqualified under such processes, then to invoke Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules to remove him from the Managing Committee of the Society, adverting to the judgment of this Court in _**Jayendrakumar v.**_ ## _**(supra).**_ **WP(C).No.14468 of 2019 7** This writ petition is thus ordered. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** MC/24.6.19 **WP(C).No.14468 of 2019 8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE BYELAWS OF THE BANK** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT OF THE ARBITRATION CASE ARC.57/2018** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SHOWING THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE ARC ON 2.11.2018** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MONEY LENDING LICENCE IN FORM NO.B ISSUED BY THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ON 26.4.2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25/04/2019 BY THE PETITIONER** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** **MC** **(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE**