High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-11-14Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

V. Remesan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Malappuram; Prakasan Kalady; Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.23905 of 2013 (K)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2014-11-14
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition devoid of merit; dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V. Remesan, President Kerala State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development Federation

Respondents

Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Malappuram
Prakasan Kalady, Member, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Advisory Board
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. N. Mohanan
• I. Vinayakumari

Counsels for Respondents

• D. Somasundaram (Special Government Pleader)
• Joyce George
• George Sebastian

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, V. Remesan, was a member of the Managing Committee of a Primary Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Co-operative Society and later served as a delegate to the Kerala State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development Federation, eventually becoming President of the Federation. He challenged an order (Exhibit P5) disqualifying him from the primary society’s committee under Rule 44(1)(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, arguing that Exhibit P1’s exemption shielded him from the clause’s operation and that disqualification should attach at the time of the order. The court analyzed Rule 44(1)(f), noting that the provision disqualifies a paid employee from election or appointment, and observed that the exemption granted in Exhibit P1 was specific to participation in Federation elections, not to the primary society. The judge highlighted the text’s emphasis on temporal relevance, citing that the disqualification is “in prasenti” (present) at the time of notice/order, and also considered precedents on the similar but distinct Rule 44(1)(c) context (Thommen v. State of Kerala; Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala). The court found that as of the date of the notice under Rule 44 and when Exhibit P5 was passed, the petitioner remained a paid employee and had not obtained the necessary exemption for the primary society. The petition was held devoid of merit and dismissed, with no costs, thereby upholding the disqualification and the federation’s view of the election legitimacy.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 44(1)(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

in prasenti

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Rule 44(1)(f) disqualification is to be determined at the time of the order and that Exhibit P1’s exemption shields him; the exemption obtained for federation participation does not exempt him from the primary society, and there is no valid exemption at the primary-society election. He argues that the presence of exemption at the Federation level should negate disqualification for the Federation post but not for the primary society’s election, and that the language of Rule 44(1)(f) requires a time-bound exemption to apply to the specific election involved.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Rule 44(1)(f) disqualifies a paid employee from election or membership and that, as of the date of notice under Rule 44 and the order (Exhibit P5), the petitioner remained a paid employee without an applicable exemption for the primary-society election; thus the disqualification is operative and ongoing.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Thommen v. State of Kerala	[1978 KLT 887]	Positive	Cited to illustrate the principle that disqualification under Rule 44(1)(c) is tied to the time of order, i.e., ‘is in default’ must be present at the time of order; used as a contextual analogue for temporal disqualification.
Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala	[1988 (1) KLT 190]	Positive	Similar application under Rule 44(1)(c) regarding present default at order time; cited to reinforce the temporal requirement for disqualification and its effect on eligibility.
Gangadharan Nair v. George O. Thettayil	[1993 (2) KLJ 864]	Positive	Cited as apposite regarding delegation/cessation implications; used to support that certain delegations depend on continued membership and that cessation can affect eligibility and status.
John v. Joint Registrar of Co-op.Societies	[1996 (1) KLT 479]	Positive	Cited for principles on delegation and how cessation of primary- society membership affects subsequent roles; treated as supportive authority.

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 V. Remesan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Malappuram; Prakasan Kalady; Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/23RD KARTHIKA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 23905 of 2013 (K)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **---------------------** **V.REMESAN, PRESIDENT KERALA STATE SCHEDULED CASTE/ SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI** ## **RESPONDENTS :** **--------------------------** **1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MALAPPURAM - 676 505.** **2. PRAKASAN KALADY, (MEMBER, SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE ADVISORY BOARD) P.O. KALADY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 562.** **3. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **R1 & R3 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. D. SOMASUNDARAM R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JOICE GEORGE SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **WP(C).No. 23905 of 2013 (K)** **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : -------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2013 OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR.** - **EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.09.2013 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17.09.2013.** - **EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.09.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2013 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 20.09.2013 IN W.P.(C)NO.23178/2013.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **------------------------------------------** **EXT. R1(a) COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9-9-2013.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **Mn** “C.R.” K.Vinod Chandran, J. **----------------------------------------** W.P.(C).No.23905 of 2013-K **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 14th day of November, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the member of the Managing Committee of a Primary Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Co-operative Society [for brevity “primary society”], who, after his election to the Managing Committee, was sent as a delegate to the Kerala State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development Federation [short “the Federation”], the apex Society. The petitioner thereafter was elected as President of that apex Society. The petitioner's grievance is with respect to Exhibit P5, which disqualified him from the membership of the Committee in the primary society, which, according to the petitioner, is of no consequence, since he has obtained Exhibit P1 exemption. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically took me to the provision under which the petitioner was disqualified, i.e., Rule 44(1)(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 [for short “the Rules”]. The petitioner's contention is that what is indicated in Rule 44 is, a disqualification at the time when the order is passed. - 2 - WP(C).No.23905 of 2013 Specific emphasis is given to the word “is” employed in the various sub-rules of Rule 44, to contend that the disqualification should be there as at the time when the order is passed. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P1, to contend that he has been issued an exemption and that, by virtue of clause (f) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 44, the disqualification would not be operative, since Exhibit P1 exemption exempts the petitioner from the operation of the clause itself. 3. It is to be specifically noticed that the petitioner was elected to the Managing Committee of the primary society on 10.11.2011. It is this election which entitled him, to be sent as a delegate to the Federation and which entitled the further participation in the election in which he was appointed as the President of the Federation. Exhibit P1 is an exemption which he sought for when participating in the election to the Managing Committee of the Federation. This exemption definitely entitled him to be elected as the President of the Federation. But, however, that does not absolve him from the liability to have got an identical exemption when he was elected to the primary society, which was the basis on which, his delegation to the Federation and further election as President of the Federation, was occasioned. - 3 - WP(C).No.23905 of 2013 4. On a reading of Exhibit P5, it is evident that the petitioner admitted that there is no exemption at the time of election to the primary society on 10.11.2011. Rule 44(1)(f) specifies that no member of the society shall be eligible for being elected, or appointed as a member of the committee of the society, if he is a paid employee of the society or of any other society. Such disqualification relates to the time of election and not to the date on which the order is passed. The petitioner is a paid employee of another society. If an exemption was obtained at that point of time, definitely such exempted person/employee would be entitled to participate in the election and hold office in the Committee; if so elected. However, the petitioner having not obtained such an exemption, which is admitted in Exhibit P5, his election to the primary society itself is invalid and the disqualification is in continuing in the Managing Committee of the primary society. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied _**Thommen v. State of Kerala**_ **[1978 KLT 887]** and _**Abdul Rasheed**_ _**v. State of Kerala**_ **[1988 (1) KLT 190]** to contend that there should be a disqualification as on the date of order. Both the said decisions were with respect to disqualification as per Rule 44(1)(c); being a - 4 - WP(C).No.23905 of 2013 default to the Society and any other society in respect of any loan transaction. It was consistently held that the default should be one present at the time of the issuance of the order, since the words employed in sub-clause(c) is “is in default”. _**Abdul Rasheed**_ ( _supra_ ) went to the extent of holding that even if such default was in existence at the time of the election; if there is no election dispute pending, then a member could be disqualified only if he incurs such disqualification on the date of issuance of notice under Rule 44(1). Hence, a person who cleared the default before the order was issued would be absolved. 6. Even going by the above precedents it cannot be said that the petitioner is not disqualified. As on the date of the issuance of notice under Rule 44 and when Exhibit P5 order was passed; the petitioner continues as a paid employee. He has also not, under the proviso obtained an exemption from Rule 44, insofar as his participation in the election. The disqualification, hence, is found to be ' _in prasenti_ '. 7. There is no question of the continuance of the petitioner in the Managing Committee of the primary society, on a subsequent exemption, which he obtained for the specific purpose - 5 - WP(C).No.23905 of 2013 of participating in the election to the post of President of the Federation. The reliance placed on _**Gangadharan Nair v. George O.Thettayil**_ **[1993 (2) KLJ 864]** and _**John v. Joint Registrar of Co-op.Societies**_ **[1996 (1) KLT 479]** is apposite. Though disqualification was not the issue, a delegation made to a Central Society; from the Managing Committee of a Primary Society was found to cease, on cessation of the membership in the Managing Committee of the Primary Society. If the petitioner is disqualified from the Managing Committee of the Primary Society, his delegation by virtue of his office in the Primary Society and the subsequent election in the Federation, by virtue of such delegation, would be of no consequence. The proviso to clause (f) of Rule 44 (1) specifically speaks of general or special orders. The reference to exemption to this clause would apply only if there is a general order to that end and not where there is a specific order as indicated in Exhibit P5. Exhibit P5 granted the exemption from the operation of Rule 44(1)(f), specifically to participate in the election to the Managing Committee of the Federation. The same is not a general exemption and is dated 08.02.2013, far later to his election to the Primary Society on 10.11.2011. Exhibit P1 can only be a WP(C).No.23905 of 2013 - 6 - special order, entitling the petitioner to be elected as President of the Managing Committee of the Federation and not to the Managing Committee of the primary society. In such circumstance, there is no infirmity in Exhibit P5. In the result, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge vku. ( true copy )