Allowed

P.Chathu v. Wynad District Whole Sale Co-Op.Cunsumer

Kerala HC12 Mar 2010WP(C)/6715/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged notice convening a general body meeting for byelaw amendments by an Administrator. Court held Administrator made no policy decision on amendments. Directs election to Managing Committee conducted within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Administrator to initiate action to ensure election to the Managing Committee is conducted within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.

P.Chathu Vs Wynad District Whole Sale Co-Op.Cunsumer — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 6715 of 2010(L)

¶6

---------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-------------------------

¶9

P.CHATHU, LAKSHMI NILAYAM, PULIARMALA.P.O., NORTH KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.P.N.MOHANAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

----------------------------

¶13

1. WAYANAD DISTRICT WHOLE SALE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS' STORE, LTD.NO.W 36, REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATOR,(UNIT INSPECTOR OF KALPETTA) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KALPATTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶14

2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), KALPATTA, WAYANAD.

¶15

3. STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. MR.P.K.RAMKUMAR

¶17

R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Kss

¶20

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶21

W.P(C) NO: 6715 OF 2010

¶22

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 12^th March, 2010.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner who was the former president of the first respondent wholesale Co-operative Consumer Store, Wayanad district challenges Ext.P3 notice for convening a general body of the society and for effecting certain amendments to the byelaws. According to the petitioner, the first respondent is now in control of the administration as the Administrator appointed by the second respondent. The Administrator was appointed with the specific object of having an election to the Managing Committee of the society conducted. He was so appointed on 17.9.2009 and his term is to expire on 16.3.2010. Instead of conducting elections the petitioner contends that the Administrator is trying to cling on to power by various methods. The present proposal to amend the byelaws is one such method. At the same time, no action has been taken by the Administrator to conduct an election to the Managing Committee of the society.

¶25

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the amendment to the byelaws by varying the quorum of the managing committee, enhancement of the share value as well as effecting a

¶26

WPC 6715/2010

¶27

¶28

change in the constitution of the managing committee are all policy decisions that an administrator has no power or authority to take. Therefore, the petitioner attacks Ext.P3 as being absolutely without any authority whatsoever. If the byelaws are amended, the amendment would have to be approved by the second respondent and, therefore, pending approval of the amendments the conduct of the elections would be delayed indefinitely. According to the counsel, amendments have been proposed with the said objective. The petitioner has therefore sought appropriate directions to the first respondent for the conduct of election of the society on an early date.

¶29

A statement as well as a counter affidavit have been filed by the Administrator on behalf of the first respondent. According to the first respondent, it has become necessary to amend the byelaws of the society to clear the ambiguity that is existing in the quorum of the managing committee as well as the constitution and strength thereof. Though it is contended that a provision reserving seats in the election for women members as well as persons belonging to the scheduled castes has to be made. However, no such amendment is seen proposed in Ext.P3. The first respondent

¶30

WPC 6715/2010 3

¶31

has denied that any policy decision has been taken by him. According to the Administrator, the proposals have been placed before the general body which is the supreme decision make authority of the society. It is up to the general body to decide whether to approve the amendments or to reject them. Therefore, it is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with Ext.P3 at this stage.

¶32

I have heard Shri.P.N.Mohanan who appears for the petitioner, Mr. P.K.Ramkumar who appears for the first respondent and Mr.K.C.Santhosh Kumar, learned senior Government Pleader for the third respondent. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously.

¶33

It is true that the Administrator was appointed on 17.9.2009 as per Ext.P2 proceedings of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In Ext.P2 there is a specific direction to conduct the election to the managing committee of the society before the expiry of his term of appointment. However, he does not appear to have initiated any steps for the conduct of such an election, for reasons which are not forthcoming. As per Ext.P3, the first respondent has sought to convene a general body meeting of

¶34

WPC 6715/2010 4

¶35

the society. Ext.P3 shows that three proposals for amending the byelaws of the society are also included in the agenda. The counsel for the petitioner submits that with respect to proposals for enhancing the share value, the amount to which the enhancement is proposed would have to be specifically mentioned. It is further pointed out that the constitution of the manging committee did not require any change as proposed because the number of persons in the managing committee is already 12. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the prescribed quorum as per the existing byelaw is 7, the said amendment is also uncalled for. Be that as it may. Since Ext.P3 contains only proposals for amending the byelaws which are placed before the general body for its decision I do not want to make any observation regarding the proposed amendments. I do not think that the Administrator has made any policy decision in proposing the amendments. The decision as to whether the byelaws are to be amended or not has to be taken by the general body of the society. It cannot be lost sight of that in all likelihood the general body may also reject the proposed amendments. Therefore, I do not think it necessary to stall the consideration of the amendments proposed as per Ext.P3. Since a

¶36

WPC 6715/2010

¶37

¶38

general body of the society has already been notified to be held on 15.3.2010 there are no grounds to interdict the convening of the same. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.

¶39

It is the further submission of the petitioner that the Administrator has not initiated any action for conducting an election to the managing committee of the society though he was appointed with a specific direction to do so before the expiry of his term of appointment. Instead, he has already sought for an extension of his term, which, according to the learned Senior Govt. Pleader has also been recommended by the second respondent. It is up to the Registrar to decide whether to grant the extension that is sought for or not. But it is absolutely necessary that an election to the managing committee of the first respondent society is conducted as early as possible and that the administration is restored to the democratically elected managing committee.

¶40

Therefore, there shall be a direction to the Administrator of the first respondent society to initiate necessary action to ensure that election to the managing committee of the first respondent society is conducted as expeditiously as possible and at any rate

¶41

WPC 6715/2010

¶42

¶43

within a period of three months from today.

¶44

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No

¶45

costs.

¶46

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶47

¶48

WPC 6715/2010 7

¶49

K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.

¶50

M.F.A.NO:

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

Dated:

P.Chathu v. Wynad District Whole Sale Co-Op.Cunsumer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Chathu v. Wynad District Whole Sale Co-Op.Cunsumer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.D.Mathew @ Sebastian Mathew Vs District Executive Officer

Iqbal Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Iqubal Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Rajeshkumar Vs President ,Mannar Panchayath

Thomas Mani Vs R.T.A. Kottayam

A.S.Nazeer Vs the Secretary, Rta, Ernakulam