High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-08-13Writ petitions allowed; Ext.P3 quashed; matter ...

V.S. Jayakumar v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G) and Anad Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.19498 of 2019 (J); WP(C).No.20573 of 2019 (V)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: The Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-08-13
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P3 is set aside; the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies is directed to reconsider the matter in light of the declarations and observations in Swathy Mohan (supra), affording necessary hearing to the petitioners and the Bank’s representative, and to take a final decision as per law, within three months from receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; Ext.P3 quashed; matter remanded to the Joint Registrar to reconsider, with opportunity of hearing to petitioners and the Society’s representative, and to decide in accordance with law within three months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V.S. Jayakumar
Sajeev D

Respondents

The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Thiruvananthapuram
ANAD Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram-685544, represented by its Managing Director

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri B.S. Swathy Kumar
• Smt. Anitha Ravindran
• Sri Harisankar N Unni

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Bimal K. Nath, Sr GP
• Sri Thomas Abraham, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court writ petition challenging Ext.P3, an order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G) that rescinded a resolution by the Administrative Committee of the Anad Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. to regularize the services of two depot managers, who had been appointed on a temporary basis in 2006. The petitioners contend Ext.P3 was issued on the basis of a letter purportedly from the Registrar and relies on Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (KCS Rules); they were not heard before the order, and therefore the action is illegal and unsustainable. They invoke the court’s decision in Swathy Mohan and Another v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and Another (W.P(C) No.14939 of 2017), arguing that due process and lawful exercise of authority under Rule 176 are essential. The respondents, including the Bank and its counsel, maintain that the petitioners were appointed irregularly and that Ext.P2 had approved regularization, with Ext.P3 simply invalidating that action in accordance with law. The judge emphasizes that due process must be followed, as echoed in Swathy Mohan, and sets aside Ext.P3, directing reconsideration by the Joint Registrar after affording hearing to both petitioners and the Bank’s representative, with a final decision within three months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (KCS Rules)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Ext.P3 was issued without due hearing and on the basis of a letter claimed to be from the Registrar; they challenge the legality of invoking Rule 176 of the KCS Rules, arguing that the Joint Registrar cannot act without affording an opportunity to be heard and that Swathy Mohan (W.P(C) No.14939 of 2017) provides the controlling approach to the Registrar’s powers. They seek quashing Ext.P3 and continuing the prior regularization decisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend the petitioners were appointed on a temporary basis since 2006; the Administrative Committee resolved to regularize their service, and Ext.P2 approved this by the Assistant Registrar; Ext.P3 rescinds that action after following due process. They argue that the Joint Registrar acted under Rule 176, and that the petitioners’ regularization is not a vested entitlement due to irregular appointments.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Swathy Mohan and Another v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and Another	W.P(C) No.14939 of 2017	Positive	The court repeatedly cites Swathy Mohan to delineate the powers under Rule 176 and to insist on due process; it supports the petitioners’ reliance on that decision and uses it as the legal framework for reconsideration.

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.S. Jayakumar v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G) and Anad Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.19498 OF 2019(J)** ## **PETITIONER:** **V.S.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS N.V.HOUSE, CHIRAPPATHY, PANAVOOR P.O., NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPOT MANAGER, PANAVOOR BRANCH, ANAD FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.919.** ## **BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695001.** - **2 ANAD FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.919, ANAD P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 685544, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV.** **SRI BIMAL K NATH SR GP SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, ANAD FARMERS SERVICE CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).20573/2019(V), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.19498 & 20573/2019 2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.20573 OF 2019(V)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SAJEEV.D AGED 46 YEARS SANTHOSH BHAVAN,PANAYAMUTTOM, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPOT MANAGER, VENKAVILA BRANCH, ANAD FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.919.** **BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G) OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.** **2 ANAD FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.919. ANAD.P.O,NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685544, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV.** **SRI BIMAL K NATH SR GP** **SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).19498/2019(J), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.19498 & 20573/2019 3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners impugn Ext.P3 order in both these cases, issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, rescinding a Resolution adopted by the Administrative Committee of the Anad Farmers Service co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' for short, regularizing them in service. 2. The petitioners say that, as is clear from the impugned order, the Joint Registrar has issued the same based on a letter alleged to have been addressed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to him, the reference of which has been shown as Item No.5 in the said order and they allege that the action of the said statutory Authorities in having invoked Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Rules' for short) in such manner is illegal and ## **WP(C).No.19498 & 20573/2019 4** unlawful. They further say that they were not heard before Ext.P3 order in both these cases were issued and therefore, that going by the judgment of this Court in _**Swathy**_ _**Mohan and Another v. Joint Registrar of Co-**_ _**operative Societies and Another**_ (W.P(C)No.14939 of 2017) the said order is unsustainable in law. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent-Society, submits that the petitioners in these cases were appointed on temporary basis in the year 2006 and they were continuing as Depot Managers for the last several years. He says that the Administrative Committee of the Society, therefore, by decision dated 24/06/2014, resolved to seek regularization of the services of the petitioners and forwarded it to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General). He submits that the said Authority, thereafter, issued Ext.P2 order in both these cases, approving **WP(C).No.19498 & 20573/2019 5** such decision and that it is based on that a Resolution was adopted by them to regularize the petitioners. He then submits that, however, the Joint Registrar has now issued Ext.P3 order holding that the actions of the Administrative Committee are illegal and thus setting aside the same. He concludes by saying that his client has nothing further to comment on the order and that they will abide by any directions to be issued by this Court. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader-Shri.Bimal K.Nath, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, concedes that the petitioners were not heard before Ext.P3 order was issued but explains that the Joint Registrar has issued the said order taking note of the fact that the petitioners were appointed irregularly and that they are not, therefore, entitled to any regularization. He asserts that the Joint Registrar has, therefore, exercised ## **WP(C).No.19498 & 20573/2019 6** his powers under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules validly and prays that the impugned order be left uninterdicted. 5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that I have, in _**Swathy Mohan**_ (supra) clearly delineated the powers of the Registrar/Joint Registrar while they act under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules. Going through the impugned order, it is unmistakable that the petitioners have not been heard before it was issued and that the Joint Registrar has acted as per certain directions given to him by the Registrar. The action of the Joint Registrar, even if the intentions behind them are credible, cannot obtain the favour of this Court, going by the declarations of law in _**Swathy Mohan**_ (supra). 6. I am, therefore, of the certain view that Ext.P3 in both these cases will have to go and that the competent Authority will ## **WP(C).No.19498 & 20573/2019 7** have to reconsider the matter in terms of the declarations of this Court in _**Swathy Mohan**_ (supra). 7. Resultantly, I order these writ petitions and set aside Ext.P3 in both these cases and direct the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to reconsider the matter, adverting specifically to the observations, declarations and directions of this Court in _**Swathy Mohan**_ (supra) and after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as to the competent representative of the Society; and then take a final decision as to whether he can exercise jurisdiction under Rule 176 of KCS Rules or whether he will have to initiate such other appropriate action in terms of law, as declared by this Court in the afore cited judgment. The afore exercise shall be completed by the Joint Registrar as expeditiously as is ## **WP(C).No.19498 & 20573/2019 8** possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and I clarify that I have not considered the validity of the second limb of the argument of the petitioners that Ext.P3 order is bad because it has been issued under dictation from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies since it may not be any more relevant in view of the afore directions and leave it to the Joint Registrar to act appropriately in terms of law. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** MC/18.8.19 **WP(C).No.19498 & 20573/2019 9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19498/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER**| |---|---| ||**NO.CRP(2)6077/14/K.DIS DATED 04.07.2014 OF**| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER**| ||**NO.CRP(2)8288/14/K.DIS DATED 20.01.2015 OF**| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NO.CRP(2)4481/16 DATED**| ||**03.07.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **WP(C).No.19498 & 20573/2019 10** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20573/2019** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE 0RDER NO.CRP(2)6077/14/K.DIS DATED 4.7.2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(2)8288/14/K.DIS DATED 20.1.2015 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(2)4481/16 DATED 3/7/2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P(C)NO.19498/2019 DATED 17.7.2019.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **MC** **(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE**