Dismissed

Haridas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2012WA/52/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-Judge Bench dismissed the writ appeal challenging an election to a cooperative bank's managing committee. The court declined interference despite claims of disqualification due to unpaid enhanced share value, noting the committee had served nearly four years under valid amendments. The court directed the bank to publish a notice allowing defaulting members to pay dues and restore voting rights

What did the court decide?

Election upheld; bank directed to publish notice allowing members two months to pay differential share capital to restore voting rights.

Haridas Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933 WA.No. 52 of 2012 () IN WPC/12907/2008 --------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.12907/2008

¶5

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶6

P.C.HARIDASAN, AGED 41 YEARS,S/O.CHAKRAPANI

¶7

RESIDING AT PALAKKATTUTHAZHATHU HOUSE,ENADI.P.O

¶8

CHEMPU VILLAGE,

¶9

VAIKOM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

K.K.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 68 YEARS,S/O.KUNJAN,RESIDING AT KARUPPAN VELIL

¶11

ENADI.P.O,CHEMPU VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK

¶12

KOTTAYAM DISRICT.

¶13

P.K.CHANDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.PADMANABHAN ACHARI

¶14

RESIDING AT KATHIRAKKOTTU HOUSE,BRAHMAMANGALAM

¶15

CHEMBU VILLAGE,

¶16

VAIKOM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶17

M.R.MANI,AGED 64 YEARS,S/O.RAMAN RESIDING AT KOGANPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIPPADAM.P.O.

¶18

CHEMPU VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶19

M.O.CHACKO, AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.OUSEPH,RESIDING AT MANIYANKUNNU BRAHMAMANGALAM,CHEMPU VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶20

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.MURALEEDHARAN SRI.SUNU P.JOHN SRI.C.DEVANAND

¶21

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶22

STATE OF KERALA,

¶23

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY

¶24

CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,

¶25

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION(CO-OPERATIVE)

¶27

DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION

¶28

SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶29

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR,CIVIL STATION KOTTAYAM.

¶30

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(ELECTORAL OFFICER), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CO OPERATIVE) VAIKOM.

¶31

THE RETURNING OFFICER, BRAHAMMAMANGALAM GRAMA SWARAJ SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,BRAHMAMANGALAM, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, VAIKOM KOTTAYAM.

¶32

BRAHMAMANGALAM GRAMA SWARAJ SERVICE

¶33

CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BRAHAMMAMANGALAM.P.O,VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM.

¶34

THE DIRECTOR BOARD OF BRAHAMMAMANGALAM GRAMA SWARAJ SERVICE,

¶35

CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶36

BRAHAMMAMANGALAM.P.O,VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM.

¶37

R6&R7 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶38

R1 TO R5 BY G.P. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

¶39

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

ANNEXURE R6(a): TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.011478/05 DT.8.3.2006 OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM.

¶42

TRUE COPY

¶43

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶44

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶45

Writ Appeal No.52 of 2012

¶46

.................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of February, 2012.

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶49

Heard counsel for the appellants and counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent. The Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the election to the managing committee of the 6^th respondent that was held on 13.4.2008. The election is challenged for the reason that appellants and more than 50% of the members of the 6^th respondent-Bank were disqualified to vote on account of failure to pay up the enhanced share value of the shares held by them. The Bank proposed to enhance the share capital by increasing share value from Rs.10/- to Rs.100/- in 2005 and the proposal was published in the newspaper on 5.11.2005. Rightly or wrongly, the share capital increase was approved by the Registrar on 8.3.2008. The appellants' case is that amendment of the byelaw was not done by the general body and hence it is invalid. We do not want to go into this

¶50

W.A. 52/2012 2

¶51

question now because election was held after two years from the registration of the amended byelaw. As of now, the elected managing committee has been in office for nearly four years and they are left with only one year tenure. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere for the very reason that there is no challenge against the amended byelaw which was registered by the Registrar on 8.3.2006. Further, since the committee has been in office for nearly four years, there is no justification to interfere with the election in a writ petition filed by five members when another 5000 members are said to be in the same position as the appellants. We, therefore, do no find any merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is dismissed. However, if members are interested, they may be given opportunity to pay up the differential share capital within two months from now and get their names restored in the voters list so that they can participate atleast in the next election. The publication will be made by the Bank in the notice board and some posters should be affixed in the various centres within the area of

¶52

W.A. 52/2012

¶53

¶54

operation of the Bank to inform members for them to pay up balance

¶55

amount to retain membership.

¶56

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶57

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH Judge

¶58

pms

Haridas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haridas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Padmanabhan Vs P.Dileep Kumar

M/S.Asian Paints Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

P.B.Abdul Salam Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Pradheeksha Shaju Vs the Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

The Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Rethna Bhai and Others

Bindu Mathew Vs the Manager, Corporate Management of Csi Schools in Malabar and Wayanad