Dismissed

Wilson George v. Muttom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 1284

Kerala HC5 Nov 2018WP(C)/34568/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by members of a Service Co-operative Bank seeking to quash an order excluding them from membership. The Court held that the members had an efficacious alternative remedy under the Act and thus the extraordinary jurisdiction was not invoked.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioners to invoke the statutory remedy under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act.

Wilson George Vs Muttom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 1284 — Election Law | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 34568 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 WILSON GEORGE,AGED 52 YEARS,S/O. GEORGE, RESIDING AT NADUVILEKIZHAKKEL HOUSE, P.O.MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

2 BENIT MERIN THOMAS,CHITTELASSERIL HOUSE,MUTTOM.P.O,THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

3 SHIHABUDHEEN.P.S,PARAKKAL,HOUSE,MRALA.P.O,MUTTO M,THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

4 THOMAS.C.SAMUEL, CHUTTELASSERI HOUSE,MUTTOM.P.O, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶11

5 TOMY JOSE,PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,MRALA.P.O, MUTTOM,THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶12

6 LALY TOMY, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,P.O.MRALA, MUTTOM,THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 MUTTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 1284 MUTTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 587, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

2 BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE MUTTOM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1284, MUTTOM.P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685587,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶17

3 SHAJU THOMAS,VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, EDAPALLY, MUTTOM.P.O, THODUPUZHA, - 685587

¶18

4 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G),THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685584

¶19

5 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685603

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SMT. SHEEJA C S., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 34568 of 2018

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioners, who are members of the 1^st

¶26

respondent Service Co-operative Bank, which is a Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules made thereunder, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P17 order dated 17.10.2018 of the 5^th respondent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and all further proceedings in the nature of Ext.P18 notice dated 20.10.2018 issued by the 1^st respondent Society convening urgent meeting of the Managing Committee at 1.00 pm. on 20.10.2018 to implement Ext.P17 order. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that 1308 members mentioned in Ext.P17 list are

¶27

eligible to be included in the preliminary voters list to be prepared for election to the Managing

¶28

WP(C).No. 34568 of 2018

¶29

¶30

Committee of the 1^st respondent Society, which is scheduled to be held on 23.12.2018, since the

¶31

cancellation of their membership is done illegally

¶32

and in arbitrary manner by the 5^th respondent Joint Registrar.

¶33

petition are opposed by respondents 1 and 2 by filing a counter affidavit.

¶34

petitioners, the learned counsel for respondents 1

¶35

and 2 and also the learned Senior Government

¶36

Pleader appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

¶37

consideration in this writ petition is as to

¶38

whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P17

¶39

order dated 17.10.2018 of the 5^th respondent Joint Registrar, whereby the proceedings initiated under

¶40

Rule 16(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies

¶41

Rules, 1969 has been culminated in that order,

¶42

whereby 1308 members including the petitioners

¶43

WP(C).No. 34568 of 2018

¶44

¶45

herein, are excluded from the membership of the 1^st respondent Society.

¶46

Admittedly, Ext.P17 order of the 5^th

¶47

respondent Joint Registrar is appealable under

¶48

Section 83(1)(j) of the Kerala Co-operative

¶49

Societies Act. The said proceedings were initiated based on Exts.P2 to P7 and similar notices issued

¶50

to 1308 members of the 1^st respondent Society, invoking the provisions under Rule 16(4) of the Rules. The fact that the petitioners and other

¶51

members were issued with notices by the 5^th

¶52

respondent Joint Registrar while initiating proceedings under Rule 16(4) of the Rules, is not in dispute.

¶53

A reading of the counter affidavit filed by

¶54

respondents 1 and 2 would show that out of 1322 notices issued, 391 notices were returned with an

¶55

endorsement 'addressee not known'; 472 with an

¶56

endorsement 'addressee left place'; 84 with an

¶57

endorsement 'addressee expired'; 34 with an

¶58

WP(C).No. 34568 of 2018

¶59

¶60

endorsement 'no such addressee'; 10 with an endorsement 'addressee out of country'; 14 with an endorsement 'addressee unclaimed'; 2 with an endorsement 'addressee door locked';, 20 with an endorsement 'addressee refused'; and 33 for other reasons. Therefore, out of 1322 notices issued by the 5^th respondent Joint Registrar, 1060 notices were returned and 262 notices were received by the respective members. Out of the aforesaid 262 members, including the petitioners herein, only 14 members produced documents in order to substantiate their claim to hold membership in the 1^st respondent Society. Those 14 members were retained and the remaining members, including the petitioners herein, who have not chosen to appear before the 5^th respondent in terms of Exts.P2 to P7 and similar notices issued by the 5^th respondent and substantiate their claim to hold membership in the 1^st respondent Society, were removed from membership.

¶61

WP(C).No. 34568 of 2018

¶62

¶63

After referring to the provisions under

¶64

Section 104 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies

¶65

Act, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners and other members of

¶66

the 1^st respondent Society are yet to be issued

¶67

with individual orders of the 5^th respondent Joint Registrar, whereby they are removed from the membership of the Society.

¶68

The fact that the 5^th respondent Joint

¶69

Registrar is yet to issue individual orders to 1308 members regarding removal from the membership

¶70

of the 1^st respondent Society is not disputed by

¶71

the learned Senior Government Pleader. The learned

¶72

counsel for the 1^st respondent Society would point

¶73

out that a copy of Ext.P17 order (running to 40

¶74

pages) was published in the notice board of the 1^st respondent Society. On a specific query made by

¶75

this Court, the learned counsel for the

¶76

petitioners would submit that the petitioners have obtained a copy of that order from the office of

¶77

WP(C).No. 34568 of 2018

¶78

¶79

the 1^st respondent Society.

¶80

In Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court reiterated that, non-entertainment of a writ

¶81

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶82

of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative

¶83

remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

¶84

WP(C).No. 34568 of 2018

¶85

¶86

In Pavithran V. State of Kerala (2009 (4)

¶87

KHC 4) , a Full Bench of this Court held that, whenever an adverse order is passed against a person, unless the same is challenged before the

¶88

appropriate forum, within the prescribed time limit, the said order will become final.

¶89

Having considered the submissions made by

¶90

the learned counsel on both sides and in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, this Court finds that the petitioners have not made out a case warranting interference on Ext.P17 order, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners are

¶91

feeling aggrieved by Ext.P17 order, they have to avail the statutory remedy under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act.

¶92

In the result, this writ petition filed on

¶93

23.10.2018 fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the

¶94

WP(C).No. 34568 of 2018

¶95

¶96

petitioners to challenge Ext.P17 order invoking

¶97

the statutory remedy available under Section 83(1)

¶98

(j) of the Act.

¶99

Sd/-

¶100

ANIL K.NARENDRAN,JUDGE

¶101

WP(C).No. 34568 of 2018

¶102

¶103

APPENDIX

¶104

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶105

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE 1 AND 3 OF THE BYLAW OF THE BANK COINTAINING CLAUSE 4(1)AND 5(A)
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/10/2018 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/10/2018 RECEIVED BY THE 2nd PETITIONER FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/10/2018 RECEIVED BY THE 3rd PETITIONER FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/10/2018 RECEIVED BY THE 4th PETITIONER FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/10/2018 RECEIVED BY THE 5th PETITIONER FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/10/2018 RECEIVED BY THE 6th PETITIONER FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TO THE 3RD PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TO THE 4TH PETITIONER

¶106

WP(C).No. 34568 of 2018

¶107

¶108

EXHIBIT	P12	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ADHAAR CARD ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P13	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ADHAAR CARD ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P14	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ADHAAR CARD ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P15	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ADHAAR CARD ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P16	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO RAJESH KUMARAN CONVENING THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON 16/10/2018.
EXHIBIT	P17	TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE ORDER DATED 17/10/2018 ALONG WITH A LIST OF 1308 MEMBERS.
EXHIBIT	P18	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CONVENING URGENT COMMITTEE MEETING AT 1 PM ON 20/10/2018
EXHIBIT	P19	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DISSENTING NOTE BY FIVE COMMITTE MEMBERS.
RESPOND	ENTS EXHI	BITS :
EXHIBIT	R2(a)	TRUE COPY OF TEH ELECTORAL IDENTITY CARD WHICH HAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY

¶109

AV/7/11

Wilson George v. Muttom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 1284

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wilson George v. Muttom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 1284

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renjith.K.v Vs State of Kerala

K.J. Sibi Vs Saseendran

E. C.Kuriakose Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Subair Muhammed Vs Muttom Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.1284

Vinoob Viswam Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Nagaroor Service Co-Operative Bank Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies