High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-07-04Writ Petition dismissed with observation regard...

V. Sathyaseelan v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram & others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 20254 of 2007 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. M. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2007-07-04
Court Decision / Holding: Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed with observation regarding due process and notice requirements when supersession occurs or is contemplated in accordance with statutory provisions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V. Sathyaseelan, Chairman, Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation

Respondents

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram
Returning Officer, Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation, Cochin
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Thiruvananthapuram
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Kollam
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Pathanamthitta
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Alappuzha
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Kottayam
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Idukki
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Ernakulam
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Thrissur
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Palakkad
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Malappuram
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Kozhikode
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Wayanad
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Kannur
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Kasaragod
State Co-operative Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation, Gandhi Nagar, Cochin, represented by Managing Director
Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation, Gandhi Nagar, Cochin, represented by Managing Director

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. George Poonthottam

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader (Sm. Anu Sivaraman) for R1 and R3–R17
• Shri Millu Dandapani, SC, for R2

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, V. Sathyaseelan, is the Chairman of the Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation (KSCOFED). He challenges alleged moves to supersede the Managing Committees of various Co-operative Societies ahead of the federation’s Board of Directors election slated for 8 July 2007. The petition contends that administrators were being deputed to cast votes by superseding elected committees, undermining democracy and the elected representation of eighty-eight societies. Ext.P1 refers to the election notification, and Ext.P2 comprises the voters list; the petitioner asserts that supersession would allow administrators to nominate delegates, diluting the franchise and subverting the electoral process. He seeks (i) a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 2–17 from superseding or removing the Managing Committees without due process, and (ii) a writ declaring that administrative actions under Section 32 or 33 for political purposes would negate the rule of law. The court observes that, as of now, there is no actual supersession; the aggrieved parties would be the committee members themselves. The Government Pleader concedes that supersession would be governed by Section 32 of the Kerala Municipality Act. The court, acknowledging no supersession having occurred, dismisses the petition, but leaves open the possibility for affected committees to approach the court if due-process violations occur. Overall, the decision relies on the procedural safeguards and the need for notice when practicable, while acknowledging potential remedies should supersession occur with improper motive.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Municipality Act, Section 32Kerala Municipality Act, Section 33Sections 65 and 66 (unspecified Act in text)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Due process of law
Reasonably practicable (interpretation standard)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

i) Prayer for prohibition to restrain respondents 2–17 from superseding or removing Managing Committees of Societies listed in Ext.P2 without due process, by issuing notice under the relevant provisions; ii) Challenge that any administrative action removing elected committees under Section 32 or 33 to serve political interests would violate the rule of law.

Contentions of Respondents

The Special Government Pleader submits that supersession falls under Section 32 of the Kerala Municipality Act, allowing supersession without notice only where notice is not reasonably practicable (a standard affixed by prior rulings, including Selvi v. District Industries Centre). He argues that no final supersession has occurred in this matter, and that the petition is not maintainable at this stage; if supersession were to occur, it must be tested for compliance with due process and statutory requirements.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Selvi v. District Industries Centre	2001 (2) KLJ 429	Positive	Cited to interpret the phrase 'reasonably practicable' in Section 32 and to guide whether notice is required for supersession.

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. Sathyaseelan v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram & 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 K.M.JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2007 / 13TH ASHADHA 1929** **WP(C).No. 20254 of 2007(J)** **-----------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **-------------------** **V.SATHYASEELAN, CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHI- 682020.** **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM** **RESPONDENTS:** - **---------------------** **1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. THE RETURNING OFFICER,** **KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN- 682020.** **3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KOLLAM.** **5. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), PATHANAMTHITTA.** **6. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), ALAPPUZHA.** **7. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KOTTAYAM.** **8. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), IDUKKI.** **9. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), ERNAKULAM.** **10. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), THRISSUR.** **11. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), PALAKKAD.** **12. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), MALAPPURAM.** **13. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KOZHIKODE.** **14. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), WAYANAD.** **15. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KANNUR.** **16. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KASARAGOD.** **17. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.** **18. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN- 682020, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.** ## **19. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING** **FEDERATION, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN- 682020, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.** ## **R1, R3 TO R17 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN)** **R2 BY SHRI MILLU DANDAPANI, SC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **K. M. JOSEPH, J.** **-------------------------------------W.P.C. NO. 20254 OF 2007 J -------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] July, 2007** ## **JUDGMENT** Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: He is the Chairman of the Kerala State Co-Operative Marketing Federation. His complaint is that for the purpose of capturing power in the election to the Board of Directors in the Federation, which is to be held on 8.7.2007, there is an attempt to supersede the Managing Committees which are in Office, without justification. Petitioner is a candidate. The attempt, according to petitioner, is only to depute the Delegates of the Administrators to cast the vote in the election to the Board of Directors of the Federation by bidding fare-well to the concept of democracy from the Eightyeight Societies having elected Committees. There is a reference to the Managing Committee of the Ezhamkulam Co-operative Marketing Society in Pathanamthitta District being superseded after publication of the _**WP(C) NO.20254/07 J**_ _**2**_ election Notification. There is also reference to the attempt to supersede the Managing Committee of Cherthala Taluk Coconut Marketing Co-operative Society which is sought to be challenged by the said Society. It is stated that the petitioner had come to know of the instructions given by the Controlling Officers of all the fourteen Revenue Districts to ensure that the appointment of Administrators in Societies as far as possible may be made wherever Reports under Section 65 or 66 are available, by superseding the Managing Committees of those Societies after publication of Ext.P1 election Notification. It is also stated that there were attempts made to appoint Administrators in five Societies and Administrators were appointed in three. Therefore, according to petitioner, as Chairman of the Apex Federation, he has approached this Court. 2. I heard Shri George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. A. G. Aneetha, learned _**WP(C) NO.20254/07 J**_ _**3**_ Special Government Pleader. The prayer in the Writ Petition are as follows: _“i) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 2 to 17 from superseding or removing the Managing Committees of the Societies in Ext.P2 voters list without following the due process of law by dispensing the notice._ _ii) Issue a writ declaring that any form of administrative action resulting in the removal of the elected committees invoking Section 32 or 33 for achieving the political interest of the party in power is a negation of rule of law.”_ 3. Admittedly, there is no supersession as of now except in respect of the Societies mentioned. The persons aggrieved in a case of supersession would be the Members of the Committees. They are not before me. No doubt, the case of petitioner is that he is the Chairman of the Federation and his _**WP(C) NO.20254/07 J**_ _**4**_ interest is traced to the effect of the supersession on the election to be held on 8.7.2007, in so far as after supersession, the Administrators would get the power to nominate delegates which was lawfully vested in the elected Committee. Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that supsersession is a matter governed by Section 32 of the Kerala Municipality Act. The Section contemplates supersession without notice in situations where it is not reasonably practicable to give notice. Of course, the word “reasonably practicable” has been interpreted by this Court in Selvi v. District Industries Centre (2001 (2) KLJ 429). I would think that this Writ Petition filed at the instance of the Chairman of the Marketing Federation to prevent supersession of the Societies in question, should not be entertained. As already noted, the directly affected party would be the Committees. No supersession has yet taken place. It would be open to the Committees to approach this Court. Of course, the first respondent is duty bound by the provisions of the Act and I am sure that the first respondent will not give rise _**WP(C) NO.20254/07 J**_ _**5**_ to any complaint that supersession is done without notice in circumstances in which notice is necessary and resort will not be made to supersession for achieving any improper purpose. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. **K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE** kbk.