W.P.(C) Nos. 1064 of 2023 and 28216 of 2023 (Vellanad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and M.S. Vimalkumar) v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Raja Vijayaraghavan V
- Judgment Date
- 2023-10-17
- Court Decision / Holding
- The court allowed WP(C)1064/2023, quashing ARC No.15/2022, and disposed WP(C)28216/2023 by directing the 1st respondent to expeditiously consider Ext.P8 and bring the matter to a conclusion within three months, with interim relief to stay appointments until orders on the stay petition. It also noted that the petitioner in WP(C)28216 may pursue interim relief before the Joint Registrar.
- Final Disposition
- Disposal with directions: 1064 allowed (ARC order quashed); 28216 disposed with directions to expedite Ext.P8 and conclude within three months; stay on appointments until further stay petition orders.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- The Managing Committee of Vellanadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.2379 represented by its President
- Vellanad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.2379 represented by its Secretary in charge
- M.S. Vimalkumar
Respondents
- M.S. Vimalkumar
- The Secretary, Co-operative Arbitration Court (Southern)
- Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General)
- Vellanad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.2379
- The Board of Directors, Vellanad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd
- The President, Vellanad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd
- Assistant Registrar General
- Assistant Registrar (General) Nedumangad
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • P.N. Mohanan
- • C.P. Sabari
- • Amrutha Suresh
- • Gilroy Rozario
- • T.I. Unniraja
- • S.G. Sreekanth
- • S. Badusha
- • Sreejith S.
- • Joel Antony George
- • Faheem Hassan S
Counsels for Respondents
- • Faheema Hansans?
- • Joel Antony George
- • Suryabinoi, GP
- • Smt. Suryabinooy, SR.GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
This joint writ petition challenges two streams of relief concerning recruitment for a post in the Vellanad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.2379. W.P.(C) No.1064 of 2023, filed by the Managing Committee (and the Bank on its own behalf), seeks to quash Exts.P11 and P12 orders of the Co-operative Arbitration Court (ARC No.15/2022), arguing that the ongoing litigation before arbitration and the Co-operative Tribunal has disturbed the selection process and that disputes over selection procedures fall outside Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. W.P.(C) No.28216 of 2023, filed by M.S. Vimalkumar, seeks directions to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to expeditiously consider Ext.P8 under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, challenging resolutions Nos. 1554–1557 and contending the process is illegal. The Court heard counsel for both sides and examined the law, including the Supreme Court’s Akalakunnam Village Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Binu N and Others (2014) 4 SCC 605, which discusses the maintainability of disputes over selection procedures under Section 69. The judgment disposes the petitions by quashing ARC No.15/2022 (in 1064) and directing expeditious consideration of Ext.P8 with a three-month deadline in 28216, with appointments stayed until further orders on the stay petition.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Disputes regarding the procedure for selection and appointment to the sub-staff category in a Co-operative Society would not fall within the ambit of Disputes to be resolved under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act (Akalakunnam Village Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Binu N and Others, 2014 (4) SCC 605)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that due to ongoing litigation before the Co-operative Arbitration Court and the Co-operative Tribunal, the bank decided to conduct a written examination for recruitment. They argue that the ARC proceedings, exts. P11 and P12, are not maintainable under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, citing Akalakunnam Village Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Binu N and Others (2014) to support the proposition that selection-procedure disputes fall outside Section 69 and that the proper course is to have the Joint Registrar consider Ext.P8/Rule 176 complaint and stay appointments pending resolution. They seek quashing of the ARC order and prompt adjudication of the complaint.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents (including Vimalkumar and other officials) acknowledge the petitions and emphasise that the matter involves complex procedural disputes; they also imply that continuance of the selection process requires careful adjudication. The respondents assent to directions to the Joint Registrar to consider Ext.P8 but advocate for maintaining necessary safeguards, including interim relief hearings, and staying appointments until final orders are issued on the stay petition.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Akalakunnam Village Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Binu N and Others | 2014 (4) SCC 605 | Mentioned Only | Cited to illustrate the principle that disputes concerning selection procedures may lie outside Section 69; used to support the argument on maintainability, but not expressly followed or distinguished in the decision. |
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.P.(C) Nos. 1064 of 2023 and 28216 of 2023 (Vellanad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and M.S. Vimalkumar) v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.