Dismissed

Bindu Mathew v. Assistant Registrar (General) of Co. Operative Societies

Kerala HC28 Oct 2020WP(C)/21064/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to stop a no-confidence motion meeting at a cooperative bank. The court found the petitioner made false claims about the venue being in a containment zone and imposed costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to Kerala State Legal Services Authority. First respondent to issue fresh notice under Rule 43A(i) of Kerala Co-op Societies Rules, 1969.

Bindu Mathew Vs Assistant Registrar (General) of Co… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.21064 OF 2020(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BINDU MATHEW AGED 45 YEARS

¶8

W/O. MATHEW, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VELIYANNOR P.O, AREEKKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 634

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.JUSTINE JACOB SMT.AMRUTHA P S SMT.AMRUTHA K P

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

1 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

¶12

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MEENACHIL, PALA P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 575

¶13

2 VELIYANOOR SERVICE CO-OPERTIVE BANK LTD. NO. 282, VELIYANOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 634, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

3 SUNNY P.U, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. ULAHANNAN, PUTHIYIDATHU HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR P.O, PIN-686 634, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

4 GEORGE K. PETER, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. PETER, KOTTAMKOMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUVELI P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 636

¶16

R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶17

SRI BIMAL K NATH SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.21064 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner herein is a member of the Director Board of the Veliyannoor Service Co-operative Bank. Instant writ petition is filed seeking to set aside Exhibit P1 notice by which a Managing Committee meeting was scheduled to be held on 9.10.2020 to discuss the no-confidence motion moved by the 4th respondent and 7 others against the 3rd respondent, the President of the Bank.

¶23

It is the contention of the petitioner that two of the Director Board members are over 65 years of age and they would find it difficult to attend the meeting in view of the restrictions of movement imposed due to the pandemic. It is further contended that the District Collector has passed an order invoking Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, restricting the assembly of more than 5 persons. Finally, it is submitted that the area where the motion is scheduled to be held is situated in a containment zone.

¶24

This Court, by order dated 7.10.2020, had stayed the notice for

¶25

a period of three weeks.

¶26

The party respondents have entered appearance and the 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit controverting the contentions. In the counter, it is stated that the petitioner had suppressed

¶27

WP(C).No.21064 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

the actual facts. It is stated that the 4th respondent is one of the persons who is stated to be over 60 years of age. However, he has no difficulty in attending the meeting. It is further stated that the assertion that the meeting is scheduled to be held in a containment zone is untrue. Finally, it is submitted that the meeting can be held by strictly following the COVID-19 protocol and by maintaining safe distance.

¶30

The learned Government pleader, on instructions submitted that

¶31

the meeting can be held by taking all safeguards and holding it in a sufficiently large hall by maintaining the COVID-19 protocol.

¶32

I have considered the submissions. When the matter had come up for admission, the petitioner had submitted before this Court that the meeting is scheduled to be held in an area which has been declared as a containment zone. The said submission was one of the reasons which persuaded this Court in no small measure to stay Exhibit P1 notice. The said fact is recorded in the interim order as well. However, Exhibit R4 (c) issued by the Secretary of the Veliyanoor Panchayath substantiates the fact that no area within the limits of the said Panchayath was declared as a containment zone. It is thus clear that false submissions were made before this Court to obtain stay of the notice of no-confidence. In that view of the matter, while dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner will have to be mulcted with costs.

¶33

Resultantly this Writ Petition will stand dismissed with cost of

¶34

WP(C).No.21064 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

5,000/-, which the petitioner shall pay within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. If the petitioner commits default in paying the aforesaid sum of Rs.5,000/- within the time limit stipulated above, it would be open to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority to recover the said amount by taking recourse to the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act.

¶37

The 1st respondent shall issue a fresh notice within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this judgment based on the original notice delivered to the registrar under Rule 43 A (i) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 and proceed with the motion as per law.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

DSV

¶42

WP(C).No.21064 OF 2020

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 1715/2020 DATED 24.09.2020. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.09.2020.

¶47

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT R4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/10/2020 OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE EXHIBIT R4(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 7/10/2020 IN WPC 21064/2020 EXHIBIT R4(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/10/2020 OF THE PANCHAYATH

Bindu Mathew v. Assistant Registrar (General) of Co. Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindu Mathew v. Assistant Registrar (General) of Co. Operative Societies

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

Annis Mathew Poovathinkal Vs the Tahsildar (Land Records)

Mini S., Vs Ajith Mathew

K.M.Varghese Vs the Excise Commissioner

Biju.G, Vs Anchal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No 2574

Murukan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Majeed Vs the Tahsildar