Trichur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar (General), Co-operative Societies, Thrissur; Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram; K.A. Kuriyappan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI** **FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/16TH PHALGUNA, 1935** **WP(C).No. 13161 of 2008 (P) ----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** - **----------** **TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.87, NO.87, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER IN CHARGE, SMT.SATHY DEVI.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT :** - **----------** **1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR.** **2. K.A.KURIYAPPAN, KAKKASSERY HOUSE, P.O.OLLUR, THRISSUR.(PEON, TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK)** **3. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P. FAZIL R2 BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2013, ALONG WITH WPC. 13168/2008, THE COURT ON 07-03-2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **WP(C).No. 13161 of 2008 (P)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :** - **P1: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 48(48) DT 27/1/1994 OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE PETITIONER BANK.** - **P2: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 80 DT 23/3/1995 OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE PETITIONER BANK.** - **P3: COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE STATUTORY AUDITOR FOR THE YEAR 1994-95.** - **P4: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO 32 DT 24/5/2007 OF THE MANAGING COMMTTEE OF THE PETITIONER BANK.** - **P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.R.B. 3539/07/KDS DT 29/3/2008 ISSUED BY THE R1.** - **P6: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CRB.6439/02 DT 13/1/2003 ALLOWING MAXIUM STAFF STRENGTH OF 117.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **BP** **A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J. -------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos. 13161 & 13168 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of March, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** Under challenge in these writ petitions is Ext.P5 orders of the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies on the ground that the same was issued in illegal exercise of jurisdiction exceeding the powers conferred. 2. The petitioner is a special grade Urban Co-operative Bank incorporated under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The persons arrayed as 2[nd] respondent in these writ petitions entered service of the petitioner as Peon. The Managing Committee, on 27.01.1994, by Ext.P1 resolution, created a post of “Shroff” as a promotion post of Peons and, temporarily posted the senior most peon in that post. Subsequently, on 23.03.1995, the bank revised Ext.P1 resolution as per Resolution No.80 dated 23.03.1995 cancelling the same. W.P.(C) Nos. 13161 & 13168 of 2008 ..2.. This was because, Ext.P1 decision was against Section 80 of the Act and Rule 188 of the Rules and Appendix III staff pattern of the Urban Co-operative Banks. There was also audit objection in the implementation of the post “Shroff”. Later, being a part of regularisation of staff pattern, Ext.P4 resolution was passed deciding to implement Ext.P2 decision. By Ext.P5 order, the 1[st] respondent Registrar rescinded the resolution stating that the petitioner is not classified under Section 80 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 182 Appendix III of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and; he issued order to continue the 2[nd] respondent in the newly created post. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 would seriously affect the working of the bank. Thus, they have come up before this Court for quashing the same. 3. Arguments have been heard. 4. The main argument advanced by the learned W.P.(C) Nos. 13161 & 13168 of 2008 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** counsel for the petitioner is that the 1[st] respondent can rescind the resolution passed by the petitioner bank only on specific circumstances as per the provisions of Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner bank, there is no ground to interfere with Ext.P4 resolution passed by the petitioner. It was argued that the 1[st] respondent is not expected to consider these matters under Rule 176 and; if the affected party (the 2[nd] respondent in both these writ petitions) had any grievance, he could have approached the forum as per Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent ought to have found that this is a dispute coming under the purview of Section 69. In support of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in **Ravendran** v. **State of** W.P.(C) Nos. 13161 & 13168 of 2008 ..4.. **Kerala** [2007 (3) KLT 558], wherein it was held that any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of different classes of societies including their promotion and inter se seniority, is to be decided by the Arbitration Court. After the coming into force of Act 1 of 2000 with effect from 02.01.2003, the dispute in connection with the employment of officers and servants of different classes of societies specified in sub-s.(1) of S.80 including their promotion and inter-se seniority has to be decided by the Arbitration Court and not by the Joint Registrar or by the Government. 5. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the crucial aspect is that the petitioner has not challenged the jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar in proper time. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that after having fought and lost, the petitioner bank cannot turn W.P.(C) Nos. 13161 & 13168 of 2008 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** round and say that the Joint Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The Division **-** Bench of this Court in **Trivandrum Co operative District Wholesale Society** v. **Deputy Registrar, - Co operative Societies, Trivandrum and Others** [1975 KLT 589] has given the well-settled principle in this jurisdiction that the petitioner, who took the chance before the lower forums, cannot be permitted to turn round and cry about the lack of jurisdiction when the decisions go against him. Here, the petitioner has not chosen to point out the lack of jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar before that authority when the matter was heard. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the jurisdiction before this Court. The aforesaid decision was later followed by this Court in **Madhavikutty** v. **State of Kerala** [2008 (1) KLT 692]. The Division Bench, which dealt with **Ravendran's** case (cited supra), had no occasion W.P.(C) Nos. 13161 & 13168 of 2008 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** to consider this particular aspect while dealing with that case. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief as prayed for on the strength of the aforesaid decision. In the light of what has been stated above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- **A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE** bka/-