Dismissed

John C.Antony v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Aug 2012WP(C)/9917/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a Cooperative Bank President's removal for failing to qualify at bifurcation, the High Court dismissed the plea. Finding the Registrar's report on the respondent's immovable property ownership unchallenged and conclusive, the Court held there was no basis to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioner.

John C.Antony Vs the State of Kerala — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/23RD SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 9917 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOHN C.ANTONY, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, CHAKKALAKKAL, THOTTUMUGHAM P.O. ALUVA, PIN-683 105, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN

¶9

SMT.V.RENJU SMT.M.A.RAMITHA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

¶13

CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

¶14

TRIVANDRUM-695 101.

¶15

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101.

¶17

JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

¶18

CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682 016.

¶19

ERNAKULAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.E.87, ALUVA-683 101

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

P.P.JOY,

¶22

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), NORTH PARAVUR

¶23

SPECIAL OFFICER,

¶24

PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL

¶25

DEVELOPMENT BANK,

¶26

NORTH PARAVUR, PIN-683 513.

¶27

K.K.JINNAS, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶28

S/O.KOCHUNNI,

¶29

ULIYANNOOR HOUSE NO.1/158(NEW NO.7/193)

¶30

KADUNGALLOOR PANCHAYAT, PARUR TALUK

¶31

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 108.

¶32

WP(C).No. 9917 of 2012 (L) - 2 -

¶33

Addl. 7. V.J.JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, SON OF KOCHUPAPPU JOSEPH VADAKKAL HOUSE, NIRMALA BHAVAN, CARMEL GARDEN PATTADPADAM, THAIKKATTUKARA.P.O. ERNAKULAM - 683 106. (ADDL. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/07/2012 IN IA 10135/2012) BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM FOR R4 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH FOR R5 BY ADV. SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SHAJAHAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN BY ADV. SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.K.JAGADEESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

WP(C).No. 9917 of 2012 (L)

¶35

A P P E N D I X

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶37

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE NO. 45 OF 2011 DATED 12.8.2011. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17.8.2011. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.2.2012. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 12.3.2012. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.4.2012. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15.1.2008 IN WPC NO.1659 OF 2008.

¶38

/TRUE COPY/

¶39

P.A TO JUDGE

¶40

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶41

W.P(c) No.9917 of 2012-L

¶42

Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2012

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

The petitioner, a member of the 4^th respondent bank, has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶45

(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other

¶46

appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate steps to remove 6^th respondent from the Presidentship of the 4^th respondent Bank forthwith.

¶47

(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quashing the same to the extent it indicates that the 4^th respondent Bank will exist as per the Ordinance.

¶48

(iii) to declare that the entire actions and decisions, if any, taken by the 6^th respondent from 1.11.2011 till date as null and void.

¶49

¶50

W.P(c) No.9917 of 2012-L

¶51

(iv) to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶52

(v) to award cost to the petitioner.”

¶53

According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P1 ordinance, the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, were amended, describing the areas of operation of Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks, confining the same to the limits of a Taluk. Consequent to the amendment, the 4^th respondent bank that was having operations in Aluva and North Paravur Taluk had to be bifurcated and its assets and liabilities had to be divided. For the above purpose, Special Officers were appointed for the various different societies. But according to the petitioner, no Special Officer was appointed for the 4^th respondent bank. The 6^th respondent is a permanent resident of North Paravur Taluk and therefore, he is not entitled to continue as the President of the 4^th respondent bank. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 representation pointing out the above fact and requesting that the 6^th respondent be removed from his post as the President of the 4^th respondent society. The complaint of the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent has not taken any action on the representation nor removed the

¶54

¶55

W.P(c) No.9917 of 2012-L

¶56

petitioner from his post as President.

¶57

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent. In the counter affidavit, it has been pointed out that pursuant to the scheme of bifurcation, all the members from Paravur taluk were transferred to the new bank at Paravur. However, the 4^th respondent applied to the 3^rd respondent to permit the existing 4 Director Board members of Paravur Taluk to continue till the expiry of the tenure of the existing Board. But, such permission was not granted. According to the 3^rd respondent, since the name of the 6^th respondent was not mentioned by the 4^th respondent society and no permission was sought by him, his case was not considered at that time. Thereafter, a complaint was received from the petitioner, pursuant to which, the matter was enquired into through the Assistant Registrar (General), Aluva. According to the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar, the 6^th respondent was not disqualified as per the Bye-law Clause 8(i)(a) of the bank. As per the above Bye-law provision, any person who possesses land within the area of operation of the bank is eligible to be a member. The 6^th respondent is a person, who owns land and house within the area of operation of the 4^th respondent bank as

¶58

¶59

W.P(c) No.9917 of 2012-L

¶60

per the report of the Assistant Registrar. It was for the said reason that the request of the petitioner was not acceded to.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the above statements of the 3^rd respondent pointing out that the 6^th respondent did not own any house or landed property within the area of operation of the 4^th respondent as on the date of bifurcation, ie. 13.10.2011. The property and house referred to by the 3^rd respondent was a subsequent acquisition, it is contended.

¶62

Advocate George Poonthottam, who appears for the 4^th respondent society, points out that going by the counter affidavit filed in this case as per a report submitted by the Assistant Registrar (General), it has been reported that the 6^th respondent is the owner of a house and landed property within the area of operation of the 4^th respondent bank. On the basis of the said report, the 3^rd respondent has also passed orders declining the request of the petitioner to take action against the 6^th respondent removing him from the post of President. Neither the report nor the order passed by the 3^rd respondent has been challenged in this Writ Petition. Since the report of the Assistant Registrar and the order of the 3^rd respondent are remaining

¶63

¶64

W.P(c) No.9917 of 2012-L

¶65

unchallenged, it is submitted that the petitioner's contentions can only be rejected.

¶66

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent. I have also considered the respective contentions anxiously.

¶67

It is to be noticed that as per the Bye-law provision that has been produced as Ext.R3(b), persons who hold landed property within the area of operation of the 4^th respondent bank are eligible to be admitted to the membership of the bank. According to the 3^rd respondent, the 6^th respondent is a person who owns an item of immovable property within the area of operation of the 4^th respondent. The petitioner also admits that the 6^th respondent owns an item of immovable property. The only dispute is that the said property was acquired after the date of the bifurcation. On the materials produced in these proceedings, it is not possible for me to ascertain the correctness of the above contentions or to enter a finding regarding the date of acquisition of the immovable property by the 6^th respondent. The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated in unmistakable terms that he has enquired into the

¶68

W.P(c) No.9917 of 2012-L 6

¶69

representation submitted by the petitioner. An enquiry was caused to be conducted through the Assistant Registrar (General) and as per the report of the said officer, the 6^th respondent is a person who owns immovable property within the area of operation of the 4^th respondent bank. There is absolutely no evidence or material produced to doubt the correctness of the above finding of the 3^rd respondent. For the above reason, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the decision of the 3^rd respondent. In fact, the decision of the 3^rd respondent is not under challenge in these proceedings, nor is the report of the Assistant Registrar (General) impugned. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition on the premise that no decision had been taken on Ext.P5. However, the fact remains that the 3^rd respondent had taken a decision thereon as stated in his counter affidavit.

¶70

In the above circumstances, it has to be held that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this Writ Petition. It is not clear why the name of the 6^th respondent was not mentioned at the time when the names of four other Directors were removed from the Board of the 4^th respondent bank. According to the 3^rd respondent, the matter was not

¶71

¶72

W.P(c) No.9917 of 2012-L

¶73

looked into at that time, because the 6^th respondent's name did not figure in the said list. It could also be for the reason that the 6^th respondent was eligible to continue as a member of the 4^th respondent by reason of his owning the immovable property within the area of the 4^th respondent's operation. The matter was enquired into by the 3^rd respondent only on receipt of Ext.P5 representation. At that time, the 6^th respondent was any way owner of an item of immovable property entitling him to continue his membership.

¶74

For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶75

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶76

rtr/

John C.Antony v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John C.Antony v. the State of Kerala

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

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Abdul Vahab

K.P.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

E. Hamza Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

K.C.Peter Vs Dr.B Asok

Justin Joseph Vs the Additional Registering Authority

Rejitha Vs the District Collector