Dismissed

Gopalakrishna Pillai v. the District Registrar (General)

Kerala HC3 Jul 2018WP(C)/16030/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the Registrar's order on his claim of non-appointment as treasurer and seeking a fresh election for the Kerala State Consumer Council. The Court held that the election was completed and outside the scope of this writ, and for issues regarding accounts, the Government is the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

None granted. The Writ Petition stands finally disposed of as no interference is called for.

Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs the District Registrar (General) — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 16030 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

GOPALAKRISHNAPILLAI N., APPLIAZHIKATHU VEEDU, CHANDANATHOPPU P.O., KOLLAM, PIN 691014.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.R.GANGADAS SRI.M.A.SHAJI SRI.K.R.AMBILI

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), RESPONDENTS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691 013.

¶11

2. KERALA STATE CONSUMER COUNCIL, KAILASAM, CHADAYAMANAGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, M.MOIDEENKUNHU(IPS RETD) PALM DALE, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPALLY P.O., KOLLAM 690518.

¶12

3. A.A.SHAFI, USHUS, KILIKOLLUR P.O., KOLLAM – 691004.

¶13

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.C.VIDHYA R2 & R3 BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.VIZZY GEORGE KOKKAT SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 16030 of 2018 (C)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.3.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.10704/2018. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A2-332/18 DATED 25.04.2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER COUNCIL VOTERS LIST-2018-20(STATE COUNCIL) PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21-2-2018 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

12.7.2018

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P(C).No.16030 Of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2018.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner, who claims to be a life member of the 2nd respondent-Society (Kerala State Consumer Council), is aggrieved by Ext.P-2 proceedings dated 25.4.2018 issued by the 1 st respondent, who is a notified Registrar in respect of the above said Society. The 2 nd respondent-Kerala State Consumer Council is stated to be a Society registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The 1st respondent is the notified Registrar as per the provisions of the said Act. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred objections/complaints before the 1st respondent herein alleging certain irregularities in the functioning of the 2nd respondent-Society. Further allegation that the said complaint dated 22.1.2018 was not being attended to by the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner herein had preferred a Writ Petition (Civil) as W.P.(C).No.10704/2018 before this Court. The said complaint was produced as Ext.P-2 in W.P.(C).No.10704/2018. The prayers in that Writ Petition are as follows:

¶31

::2::

¶32

W.P(C).No.16030 Of 2018

¶33

“i) Issue a writ of Mandamus any other appropriate writ order or command the 1st respondent to dispose Exhibit P2 after giving an opportunity to hear the petitioner, and others respondents, ii) issue a writ of Mandamus any other appropriate writ order or command the 1st respondent to conduct election of the office bearers of 2nd respondent council forthwith. iii) issue such other further orders deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, iv) award the cost of the petitioner in this proceedings.”

¶34

The said W.P.(C).No.10704/2018 was disposed of by Ext.P-1 judgment dated 27.3.2018, which reads as follows:

¶35

“The petitioner confines his request for an early disposal of Ext.P2. In the light of the limited request made by the petitioner before this Court, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to dispose Ext.P2 complaint within three weeks after hearing the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. The writ petition is disposed of as above.”

¶36

It is pursuant to the direction in Ext.P-1 judgment that the

¶37

1st respondent-Registrar has passed the impugned proceedings at

¶38

Ext.P-2 dated 25.4.2018. The prayers in the present Writ Petition,

¶39

W.P.(C).No.16030/2018 are as follows:

¶40

“i) Issue a writ of Mandamus any other appropriate writ order or command the 1st respondent to take action against the defaulters who conducted irregularities reported in Exhibit P2,

¶41

ii) issue a writ of Mandamus any other appropriate writ order or command the 1st respondent to suspend the election declared by the General Secretary and to conduct fresh election of the office bearers of 2nd respondent council under the direct supervision of 1st respondent excluding the defaulters in Exhibit P2.

¶42

iii) issue such other further orders deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶43

iv) award the cost of the petitioner in this proceedings.”

¶44

::3::

¶45

W.P(C).No.16030 Of 2018

¶46

Heard Sri.A.R.Gangadas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri.C.Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents 2 & 3.

¶47

A reading of Ext.P-2 proceedings dated 25.4.2018 would make it clear that the 1st respondent has bestowed his anxious consideration on the various aspects of the matter. He has dealt with various allegations of the petitioner that certain bye-laws of the Society have been violated by their impugned action. The 1st respondent has noted that he has no competence to dealt with those allegations which alleges only violation of the provisions of the bye-laws. The crucial allegation made by the petitioner was that though he was duly elected as treasurer of the Society he was not permitted to take charge in that capacity. Regarding that crucial allegation, the 1 st respondent has made the following fact findings, which are given in the last paragraph of internal page 2 of Ext.P-2, which reads as follows:

¶48

“കകേരള കസ് റ ്റേറ്റ് കേൺസസ്യൂമർ കേകൗൺസസിലസിനന്റെ നസിലവസിനല ചചാർജുള്ള നട്രെഷറർ എന നസിലയസിൽ തചാങ്കൾകറ്റ് ചചാർജറ്റ് കകേമചാററ്റം നൽകേസിയസിടസിലചാനയനറ്റം റസികചാർഡുകേൾ കകേമചാറസിയസിടസില എനമുള്ള തചാങ്കളുനടെ പരചാതസി ആകരചാപണതസികന്മേൽ ഈ ഓഫഫീസസിൽ ഫയൽ നചയസിട്ടുള്ള കരഖകേൾ പരസികശചാധസിച്ചതസിൽ സറ്റംഘറ്റം കബൈലചാ അനുസരസിച്ചറ്റ് എലചാ ഫണ്ടുകേളുറ്റം കേമസിറസിക് ക ുവണസി ട്രെഷറർ കകേകേചാരരറ്റം നചയ്യണനമനറ്റം ഓകരചാ മചാസകതയറ്റം വരവറ്റ് ചസിലവറ്റ് കേണക് ക ു ൾ അടുതമചാസനത കേമറസിയസിൽ ട്രെഷറർ അവതരസിപസിച്ചറ്റ് പചാസചാകകണതറ്റം ചസിലവുകേൾകറ്റ് കൃതരമചായ വകൗച്ചററ്റം വരവസിനറ്റ് രസഫീതറ്റ് ബുക് ക ു ളുറ്റം സൂകസികകണതചായസിട്ടുള്ളതചായറ്റം കേചാണുന, സറ്റംഘറ്റം ഹചാജരചാകസിയ വചാർഷസികേ കേണക് ക ു ൾ പരസികശചാധസിച്ചതസിൽ 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 കേചാലയളവുകേളസിൽ ട്രെഷറർ എന നസിലയസിൽ ഒപറ്റ് നവച്ചസിട്ടുള്ളതറ്റ് തചാങ്കളചാണറ്റ് എനകേചാണുന. കൂടെചാനത ജനറൽ നസക്രടറസി ഹചാജരചാകസിയ 2014 മുതലുള്ള

¶49

::4::

¶50

W.P(C).No.16030 Of 2018

¶51

വകൗച്ചറകേളസിലുറ്റം തചാങ്കൾ തനനയചാണറ്റ് ഒപസിടനതനറ്റ് കേചാണുന. തചാങ്കൾ ട്രെഷററചായസി 2014- 2015, 2015 - 2016 കേചാലയളവസിൽ കേണക് ക ു ൾ അവതരസിപസിച്ചസിട്ടുള്ളതചായസി മസിനസിററ്റ്സറ്റ് കരഖകേളുറ്റം ഒപറ്റ് കരഖനപടുതസിയ വചാർഷസികേ കേണക് ക ു ളുറ്റം ഉള്ളതസിനചാൽ തചാങ്കളുനടെ അറസിവസിലചാനതയചാണറ്റ് കേണക് ക ു ൾ കകേകേചാരരറ്റം നചയസിട്ടുള്ളതറ്റ് എന വചാദഗതസി അറ്റംഗഫീകേരസികചാൻ സചാധസിക്കുനസില കൂടെചാനത ടെസി കേചാലയളവസിനലചാനറ്റം തചാങ്കൾ ഈ ആഫഫീസറ്റ് മുമചാനകേ ചചാർജറ്റ് കകേമചാററ്റം സറ്റംബൈനസിചറ്റ് പരചാതസികേനളചാനറ്റം സമർപസിച്ചസിടസിലചാതതമചാണറ്റ്. (ഹചാജരചാകസിയസിട്ടുള്ള കരഖകേളസിനല, ഒപറ്റ്, കരഖകേളുനടെ ആധസികേചാരസികേത എനസിവ പരസികശചാധസിക്കുവചാൻ ജസിലചാ രജസിസചാർകറ്റ് /സറ്റംഘറ്റം രജസിസചാർകറ്റ് സചാധസികചാതതചാണറ്റ് ). ”

¶52

It is seen from the above said fact findings made in Ext.P-2 and the materials with the 1st respondent-Society would clearly show that the petitioner in his capacity as treasurer has signed in the accounts for the years concerned 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and further that the minutes and other documents maintained with the 2nd respondent would show that the petitioner has also presented the statement of accounts for those years in his capacity as treasurer, etc. In the light of these aspects, the 1st respondent has come to the considered conclusion that the above said objections raised by the petitioner that he has not taken charge as the treasurer of the Society is not tenable. To a specific query raised by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether these fact findings are correct or not, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the signature referred to therein are that of the petitioner but he has signed those documents on the request made by other members of the Society concerned. It is also pertinent to note that anywhere in the Writ Petition it is stated that the fact findings made in Ext.P-2 are in any manner wrong or incorrect. In these

¶53

::5::

¶54

W.P(C).No.16030 Of 2018

¶55

circumstances, it is not proper for this Court to act merely on the basis of the oral assertion made by the petitioner and that too before this Court and though the signatures pertain to the petitioner, he had signed those documents as requested by other members of the Society. The petitioner has no case that he has signed those documents out of coercion and inducement. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed 2 Writ Petitions before this Court alleging irregularities of the functioning of the 1st respondent-Society. In that situation, it is difficult to believe that the petitioner had to succumb to the request of the other members of the Society with whom he is not raising the dispute and that he has signed the documents at the request of such other members of the Society. Various other aspects of the matter has also been discussed in Ext.P-2 as can be seen from a mere reading of Ext.P-2.

¶56

The 3rd respondent has now filed a counter affidavit dated 2.7.2018. Therein it is stated by the 3rd respondent that election to the 2nd respondent-Society was duly completed on 15.5.2018 and the 3 rd respondent has been re-elected as the General Secretary of the Society. Further it is pointed out that the petitioner was not even elected from the Primary Constituency concerned and therefore he is not eligible to contest the election of the office bearers of the 2nd respondent-State

¶57

::6::

¶58

W.P(C).No.16030 Of 2018

¶59

Council, etc. The averments of the 3rd respondent that elections to the 2nd respondent-State Council has already been over on 15.5.2018 and new office bearers have taken charge, have not been denied by the petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court is not in a position to grant any of the prayers sought for by the petitioner either in respect of Ext.P-2 or in respect of the election conducted to the 2 nd respondentSociety. Moreover, it is not right and proper for this Court to adjudicate on the merits of the controversy regarding the legality and correctness of the election to the 2nd respondent-Society that was conducted on 15.5.2018. If the petitioner has any legally justiciable grounds regarding the legality and correctness of the election, he is at liberty to initiate appropriate civil litigative proceedings. It is made clear in this regard that none of the observations in this judgment will not prejudice the petitioner from seeking such appropriate remedies in such appropriate civil proceedings. Further it is seen that Sec.19 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, provides as follows:

¶60

“Sec:19: Power to call for accounts and inspection of books, etc. - (1) The State Government may at any time call upon the governing body of any society to submit periodically accounts of income and expenditure and of the assets and liabilities of the society. The Registrar or any other officer authorized by the State Government shall periodically examine the accounts and other books of the society and submit to the Government a report on the

¶61

::7::

¶62

W.P(C).No.16030 Of 2018

¶63

result of such inspection. The Inspecting Officer may enter the premises of the society and governing body and the servants of the society shall furnish him with all information he may call for and shall also render him all the assistance necessary to enable him to conduct the examination and make the report. It shall be the duty of the governing body and of all persons who are or have been servants of the society to produce before the officer so deputed all books and documents in their custody or power relating to the society and to answer any question relating to the affairs of the society.

¶64

(2). Whenever the Inspecting Officer has reason to believe that the accounts or other books and documents of the society are withheld without sufficient excuse, he may after recording the reasons and grounds of his belief, enter and search or cause to be searched any place or may seize any such accounts, books or documents.

¶65

(3). The State Government may, for the efficient and better management of the society, review the report submitted under sub-section (1) and pass such orders as they deem fit other than those referred to in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of section 25.”

¶66

It is also made clear that if the petitioner can make out a cogent and precise case within the parameters of Sec.19(1) of the Act, it is for him to approach the competent authority of the Government as envisaged in Sec.19(1) of the Act. In the light of these aspects this Court is of the

¶67

view that no interference is called for in this writ proceedings.

¶68

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,

Judge.

Bkn/-

// True copy // P.A to Judge //

Gopalakrishna Pillai v. the District Registrar (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalakrishna Pillai v. the District Registrar (General)

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

Saleena Beevi Vs the State of Kerala

Vineeshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Vs the District Collector

Jasmi Vs the District Collector

Sanooja.v.Nair Vs the Registrar of Births and Deaths

Kunhimuhammed Haji Vs the Land Tribunal Tirur