Allowed

Chandrasekhara Pillai P. v. Deputy Director, Department of Dairy Development

Kerala HC16 Nov 2012WP(C)/19526/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the disqualification of board members and the appointment of an administrator in a dairy cooperative society. The High Court directed the Deputy Director and Administrator to initiate steps to conduct elections within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Respondents directed to initiate steps to conduct elections to the society within three months.

Chandrasekhara Pillai P. Vs Deputy Director, Department… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/25TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 19526 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI P., AGED 58 YEARS ROHINI, EDAVATTOM, KARYAVELIL.P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT, FORMER DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBER PAVITHRESWARAM KSHEERA ULPATHAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.Q.61(D), KOTTARAKKARA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

¶9

SMT.K.K.RAZIA SRI.MURALI MADANTHACODU SRI.SHAKTHI PRAKASH SMT.SOBBY THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶12

2. ADMINISTRATOR PAVITHRESWARAM KSHEERA ULPATHAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.Q.61(D) DIARY EXTENTION OFFICER, VETTIKKAVALA BLOCK OFFICE VETTIKKAVALA.

¶13

3. PAVITHRESWARAM KSHEERA ULPATHAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.Q.61(D), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

4. SRI.ANILKUMAR (MEMBER NO.240), SREESAILAM, EDAVATTOM KARUVELIL.P.O.

¶15

5. SRI.BAVUKUTTAN PILLAI (MEMBER NO.283), MANGALASSERY PUTHEN VEEDU PAVITHRESWARAM.P.O.

¶16

6. SRI.M.M.JACOB (MEMBER NO.44), MAMACHANKAVIL PUTHENVEEDU PAVITHRESWARAM.P.O.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL R4 TO 6 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 19526 of 2012 (M)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXT. P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT RAMACHANDRAN UNNITHAN.

¶24

EXT. P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 7.3.2012 SUBMITTED BY SRI.RAMACHANDRAN UNNITHAN TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P3- A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD. 21.3.2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 21.3.2012 OF THE IST RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS ADMINISTRATOR.

¶27

EXT.P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE BONUS REGISTERS OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT, SRI.RAMACHANDRAN UNNITHAN.

¶28

EXT.P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 26.3.2012 IN W.P(C)NO.7438/12. EXT.P7- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26.6.2012 IN W.P(C)NO.7438/12.

¶29

EXT.P8- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27.7.2012 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶35

W.P.(C).No.19526 Of 2012 ---------------------Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2012.

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction directing the 1^st respondent to conduct election as early as possible, at any rate, within two months and for other reliefs.

¶38

The petitioner is the former Director Board member of the 3^rd respondent society. The Board of Directors of the 3^rd respondent society took charge on 22.6.2007. The five year period of the Board expired on 21.6.2012. The society registered in the year 1980 is having 629 members and 99 voters. The members of the society are milk farmers. The strength of the Director Board was 9 and the quorum of the Board was 5. It is submitted that on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 5^th respondent and the enquiry report on the basis of the complaint on 25.1.2012, the 1^st respondent ordered to disqualify 5 members of the Director Board and hence the quorum to convene the Board was lost. Ext.P3 is the copy of the order dated 21.3.2012 passed by the 1^st respondent disqualifying

¶39

::2::

¶40

W.P.(C).No.19526 Of 2012

¶41

majority of the members. On the same day, the 1^st respondent appointed the 2^nd respondent as administrator of the society. Ext.P4 is the copy of the order.

¶42

The petitioner submits that disqualified members of the Director Board are milk farmers having cow in all of their houses, that the complaint of the 5^th respondent is false and that the enquiry report of the 2^nd respondent is totally untrue and are only part of the conspiracy between them to supersede the committee. It is also pointed out that the term of the elected committee expired on 21.6.2012 and that when there was only two months period left for the next election Ext.P3 order of disqualification was passed. It is submitted that the act of disqualifying the majority of the members of the Board of Directors was a malafide action purposely made to avoid the existing elected committee. By Ext.P8 order dated 27.7.2012 the 1^st respondent ordered to appoint an administrative committee comprising respondents 4 to 6 as members.

¶43

The appointment of an administrator and administrative committee are temporary measures. There is a

¶44

::3::

¶45

W.P.(C).No.19526 Of 2012

¶46

duty cast upon respondents 1 & 2 to initiate steps immediately to conduct election after appointment of the administrator. Steps have to be taken to conduct election and conduct election without further delay. Even after passing Exts.P3 & P4 orders, it is seen that no steps have been taken to conduct the election so as to entrust the administration to a democratically elected committee.

¶47

The writ petition is therefore, disposed of directing respondents 1 & 2 to initiate steps to conduct election to the society forthwith and to conduct election within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶49

bkn/-

Chandrasekhara Pillai P. v. Deputy Director, Department of Dairy Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekhara Pillai P. v. Deputy Director, Department of Dairy Development

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

Space Engineers Welfare Society (Sewels) Vs L.Sindhu

M/S.Malabar Palace Vs General Secretary, Kozhikode Vanijya Vya

P.Victor Cleatus Vs Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board

Jimmy Joseph Vs Additional Registering Authority

Nalini.a.K. Vs State of Kerala

Nazeer Vs Secretary, Rta