W.A.No. 14 of 2016 & W.A.No. 159 of 2016 (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. Chitambaresh
- R. Narayana Pisharadi
- Judgment Date
- 2018-12-07
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment permitting to skip Section 28A is set aside. Fresh notification shall be published and election conducted in strict adherence to Section 28A of the Act. If no exemption is obtained under Section 101, the Government/Registrar shall ensure compliance, including increasing the total number of seats in the managing committee to eleven (from seven) to accommodate reserved-category representation. The process should be completed within six months. Thereafter, the Government or Registrar may nominate members in reserved categories to the elected committee as provided under Section 28A(4).
- Final Disposition
- Writ appeals allowed; directions issued for elections to be conducted under Section 28A with 11 seats, possible post-election nominations for reserved seats, and six-month deadline; potential exemption under Section 101 if applicable.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Kanhikavu Kunjikishnan
- Anitha Nivas
- Thirumangalath
- Naduvannur, KOyilandy
- Kozhikode
- (3rd party)
Respondents
- Ali Koya
- State Co-operative Election Commissioner
- Electoral Officer
- Returning Officer
- Secretary, Oravil Blacksmithy Carpentry Workers Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. P.C. Sasidharan
Counsels for Respondents
- • R1: Sri. Santharam P. & SMT. Rekha Aravind
- • R2-R4: Sr. GP K.R. Deepa
- • R5: Adv. P.P. Jacob
- • R1 (WA159): Sri. M. Sharafudheen, SC
- • R2-R4 & R6: SMT. K.R. Deepa
- • R5: Adv. P.P. Jacob
- • R7 & R9: Adv. Mansoor B.H.
Case Synopsis & Summary
These writ appeals challenge a single-judge order directing that the managing committee election of Oravil Blacksmithy Carpentry Workers Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. be held with all seats open to the general category, bypassing Section 28A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which mandates reserved seats for women and for Scheduled Castes or Tribes. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, explains the constitutional aim of reservation to attain socio-economic justice under the Preamble and Articles 38 and 46, and examines Section 28A of the Act (and its subsections 28A(1)-(4) and 28(1A)) to resolve the impasse created by a long delay in elections. The court considers several options: (i) conduct elections with seven general seats while nominating reserved-category members under Section 28A(3) and 28A(4) after the election, (ii) postpone to implement Section 28A or (iii) seek exemption under Section 101 to relieve the society from 28A requirements where no women or ST/SC stakeholders exist. The court ultimately sets aside the impugned judgment, directs fresh notification and elections strictly under Section 28A, and increases the total seats to eleven, enabling reserved seats to be filled by nomination if necessary, with a six-month time limit. The decision balances the statutory framework with practical governance and the Government's power to exempt in public interest.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Reservation for women and members of Scheduled Castes or Tribes in the committee is a constitutional mechanism to achieve socio-economic and political justice (Preamble and Arts 38, 46).
- Exemption under Section 101 of the Act can exempt a society from Section 28A in public interest when there are no stakeholders in the reserved category.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants contend that Section 28A must be applied to provide reserved seats for women and for SC/ST members; if representation is lacking, Government/Registrar can nominate such members to the elected committee under Section 28A(3)-(4). They propose increasing seats (to 11) under Section 28(1A) and having reserved seats filled post-election, or seeking exemption under Section 101 to exempt the society from 28A where stakeholders in reserved categories are absent.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend the need for practical resolution of the deadlock under current circumstances and rely on the option of nominating reserved-category members or exempting the society under Section 101; they emphasize ensuring governance and quorum until representation can be established.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Uttar Pradesh v. COD.Chheoki Employees' Co-operative Society Ltd. | [(1997) 3 SCC 681] | Positive | Cited to support the principle that reservation aims to achieve socio-economic and political justice as part of constitutional object. |
| Kumarakom Lime Shell Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of Kerala | [2012 (3) KLT 696] | Positive | Cited to justify potential exemption under Section 101 in cases where women representation is impracticable or not warranted. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 W.A.No. 14 of 2016 & W.A.No. 159 of 2016 (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.