Swapna Ramachandran v. Joint Registrar (General), Co-operative Societies, Collectorate, Ayyanthole, Thrissur; Wadakkanchery Block Multi-Purpose Co-Operative Society; Rugminiamma; Velur Grama Panchayath Vanitha Co-Operative Society Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 15205 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **SWAPNA RAMACHANDRAN AGED 38 YEARS D/O. BHARATHAN, PARAKKUTH HOUSE, P.O. VELUR BAZAAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 601.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.D.DILEEP SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)**| |---|---| ||**CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES**| ||**COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 003.**| |**2**|**THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THALAPPILLY, WADAKANCHERY,**| ||**THRISSUR 680 582.**| |**3**|**WADAKKANCHERY BLOCK MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE**| ||**SOCIETY R NO. 1125, WADAKKANCHERY**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680 582.**| |**4**|**RUGMINIAMMA**| ||**NJAREKKAT HOUSE, KIRALOOR P.O.,**| ||**VELUR, PIN - 680 601.**| |**5**|**VELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY**| ||**LTD NO. 1342, VELUR, THRISSUR, PIN 680 601.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN, STANDIING COUNSEL**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).15431/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) 15205/2019 ,WP(C).15431/2019** 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 15431 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **SWAPNA RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 38 YEARS D/O.BHARATHAN, PARAKKUTH HOUSE, P.O.VELUR BAZAAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680601.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.D.DILEEP SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE : 1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN- 680003. 2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THALAPPILLY, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR, PIN- 680582. 3 WADAKKANCHERY BLOCK MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY R NO.1125, WADAKKANCHERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN- 680582. 4 RUGMINIAMMA, NJAREKKAT HOUSE, KIRALOOR P.O., VELUR, PIN- 680601. 5 VELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.1342, VELUR, THRISSUR, PIN- 680601. BY SMT.C.S.SHEEJA-SR.GOVT.PLEADER R3 BY SRI.P.N.MOHANAN, STANDING COUNSEL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).15205/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) 15205/2019 ,WP(C).15431/2019** 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner in these two cases claims that she is the member of the Managing Committee of the 5[th] respondent, Velur Grama Panchayath Vanitha Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Society” for short) and impugns the action taken against her by the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-Operative Societies, Thrissur, removing her from such membership on the allegation that she is disqualified under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the KCS Rules” for short) because she is in default of certain amounts to the 3[rd] respondent-Wadakkanch,ml.ery Block Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society. 2. The petitioner says that she was initially issued with a notice asking her to show cause why action under Rule 44(1)(c) (i) of the KCS Rules be not taken against her and she says that she was, therefore, constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P. (C).No.15205 of 2019 challenging the said notice, which has been produced in this writ petition as Ext.P3. She continues to say that in spite of the pendency of this writ petition, the Joint Registrar issued a final order, purportedly under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) of the KCS Rules, but removing her from the membership of the Managing **WP(C) 15205/2019 ,WP(C).15431/2019** 4 Committee, a copy of which order has been placed on record as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).No.15431 of 2019 filed by her subsequently. The petitioner's specific allegation is that Ext.P4 order in W.P. (C).No.15431 of 2019 is illegal and untenable in law, since it has been issued without following any of the procedural requirements or mandate of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).No.15431 of 2019 be set aside. 3. Sri.C.D.Dileep, the learned counsel for the petitioner in both these cases, began his submissions by reiterating the afore factual narration; adding that Ext.P4 order in W.P. (C).No.15431 of 2019 has been issued in gross affront to the various judgments of this Court in this area. He says, pointing to the contents of Ext.P4 order, that even though the earlier notice issued to the petitioner was only a show cause notice as to why she should not be declared disqualified under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) of the KCS Rules, Ext.P4 order in W.P.(C).No.15431 of 2019, in fact, removes her from the Managing Committee of the Society, holding that she is in default of certain amounts to the 3[rd] respondent. He submits that factually these conclusions are wrong and that his client can establish that she is not in default and secondly that the statutory procedure followed is also untenable, since she has been **WP(C) 15205/2019 ,WP(C).15431/2019** 5 removed from the Managing Committee of the Society without following the procedure under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules. He relies for support on the judgment of this Court in **Jayendrakumar v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) [2019 (2) KLT 671]** . 4. Sri.P.N. Mohanan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Wadakkanchery Block Multi Purpose Co-operative Society, submits that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order because the petitioner is in default of certain amounts to his client and that this is obvious and evident from the pleadings on record. He, therefore, prays that the order impugned by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15431 of 2019 be not interdicted. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.C.S.Sheeja, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, concedes that Ext.P4 order in W.P.(C).No.15431 of 2019 has been issued purportedly under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) of the KCS Rules, but that its conclusion reads as if it is an order under Rule 44 (3) of the KCS Rules. She says that she does not have information or instructions as to whether a separate order under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules has already been issued to the petitioner and whether any further proceedings pursuant thereto has been completed. **WP(C) 15205/2019 ,WP(C).15431/2019** 6 6. On an assessment of pleadings available on record and the submissions made before me as above, I am afraid that I cannot find favour with Ext.P4 order in W.P.(C).No.15431 of 2019, even though I do not propose to go into the factual controversy on its merits. This is because, Ext.P4 is intended to be an order under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) of the KCS Rules, but it concludes by saying that the petitioner has been removed from the Managing Committee of the Society, which could have been done only under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules. I am afraid that this procedure is completely untenable, going by the judgment of this Court in **Jayendrakumar's case** (supra) and consequentially, that the petitioner could have been removed, even if she had been found disqualified under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) of the KCS Rules, only after following the statutory mandate under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules. 7. As I have already indicated above, I do not propose to consider the merits of the rival contentions of the parties regarding the question whether the petitioner is in default to the Wadakkanchery Block Multi Purpose Co-operative Society, since it is for the competent Authority to decide this first and to then issue an order thereon, followed by appropriate action under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules, if the petitioner is required to be removed **WP(C) 15205/2019 ,WP(C).15431/2019** 7 ## from the Managing Committee. 8. In the above perspective, I quash Ext.P4 in W.P. (C).No.15431 of 2019, not because I have concluded on its merits affirmatively, but so as to enable the concerned Authority to reconsider the whole matter in terms of law and to then issue appropriate orders thereon, so that the petitioner can also invoke her available remedies, if such orders are to be detriment. Resultantly, W.P.(C).No.15431 of 2019 is allowed to the limited extent of setting aside Ext.P4 and directing the 1[st] respondent therein to complete the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) of the KCS Rules in terms of law, affording all sides necessary opportunity of being heard and after adverting all their contentions; and to then issue an order either holding the petitioner to be disqualified or otherwise. In the event such exercise leads to the conclusion that the petitioner is disqualified under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) of the KCS Rules, then necessary action under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules will be taken forward adverting to the declaration of law by this Court in ## **Jayendrakumar's case** (supra). Even though it may not be possible for me to fix the time frame for each of the steps above directed, I make it clear that the Joint Registrar will complete the entire process, as expeditiously **WP(C) 15205/2019 ,WP(C).15431/2019** 8 as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, since I have ordered W.P.(C).No.15431 of 2019 in the above manner, no orders are required to be issued in W.P.(C).No.15205 of 2019, since the challenge therein is only against the notice issued by the Joint Registrar under the provisions of Rule 44(1)(c)(i) of the KCS Rules. That writ petition will therefore stand closed without this Court going into any of the contentions raised therein. **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** jv **JUDGE** **WP(C) 15205/2019 ,WP(C).15431/2019** 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15205/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14/12/2018 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR SEC. 65 ENQUIRY.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSION AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/5/2019 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22/5/2019.** **WP(C) 15205/2019 ,WP(C).15431/2019** 10 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15431/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.12.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR SEC 65 ENQUIRY. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSION AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.05.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**