Disposed

Biju K.R v. the Agricultural Officer

Kerala HC21 Jan 2022WP(C)/1800/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging notices for an extraordinary election of a Karshaka Sangham's committee. It refused to interfere with the election process but directed that elections be held only if sufficient quorum is present as per bye-laws.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with an observation that the election must comply with quorum requirements under the Society's Bye-Laws.

Biju K.R Vs the Agricultural Officer — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 1ST MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1800 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BIJU K.R, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O RAVINDRAN, KANNATHULLI HOUSE, MULLASSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680509.

¶8

BY ADVS. VINOD RAVINDRANATH MEENA.A. K.C.KIRAN M.R.MINI M.DEVESH ASHWIN SATHYANATH ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH THAREEQ ANVER K.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VENKIDANGU, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN-680510.

¶11

2 THE PUNJA SPECIAL OFFICER, PUNJA SPECIAL OFFICE, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR-680020.

¶12

3 ELAMUTHA KOL KARSHAKA SANGHAM, KANNOTH P.O., VENGIDANGU, THRISSUR, PIN-680510, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

4 THE SECRETARY, ELAMUTHA KOL KARSHAKA SANGHAM, KANNOTH P.O., VENGIDANGU, THRISSUR, PIN-680510.

¶14

SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C)No.1800/2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2022

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P4 and to declare that the 1^st respondent has no authority to issue Exts.P3 and P4 notices and hence are bad in law and illegal.

¶21

The 3^rd respondent is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Managing Committee of the Society was last elected on 12.12.2019. The tenure of the Committee has expired, but elections are not conducted. In the circumstances, one Mr. Rajan M.K. approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.2337 of 2020. This Court disposed of the writ

¶22

petition as per Ext.P2 judgment directing the 2^nd respondentPunja Special Officer to do the needful to conduct the election,

¶23

as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

¶24

WP(C)No.1800/2022

¶25

¶26

Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the 1^st respondent-Agricultural Officer has issued Ext.P3 notice calling for an Extra Ordinary General Body Meeting on 24.01.2022 to hold election. It is challenging Exts.P3 and P4 notifications of the 1^st respondent that the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court by Ext.P2 judgment has only directed the 2^nd respondent to do the needful to conduct election as expeditiously as possible. Such a direction of this Court cannot be treated as one authorising the Agricultural Officer to conduct the election ignoring the Bye-laws of the Society. As per the Bye-laws of the 3^rd respondent-Society, the Secretary has to issue notice and take necessary steps to conduct election. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 are in violation of the Bye-laws of the 3^rd respondent-Society.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the election is conducted only in ordinary

¶29

WP(C)No.1800/2022

¶30

¶31

General Meeting, where the Bye-laws prescribe a minimum quorum. Now, respondents 1 and 2 are going to hold the election in an Extra Ordinary Meeting, where the requirement of quorum is not applicable. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the intention of respondents 1 and 2 is to conduct election even if there is no quorum.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶33

The 3^rd respondent is a Karshaka Sangham. The 3^rd respondent is getting the benefits of Government Schemes which are regulated by respondents 1 and 2. This Court as per Ext.P2 judgment directed the 2^nd respondent to take necessary steps to hold elections to the Managing Committee of the 3^rd respondent-Society. Fact remains that the tenure of the existing committee expired long ago. The intention of the petitioner appears to prolong the tenure of the present committee who is continuing in office for more than two years even after the expiry of the tenure. In the circumstances, I am

¶34

¶35

¶36

not inclined to interfere with the election process.

¶37

However, it is made clear that respondents 1 and 2

¶38

shall hold election pursuant to Ext.P4, only if there is sufficient quorum as mandated by Clause 6(3) of Ext.P1 Bye-Law.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶40

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1800/2022

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

Exhibit P1	TRUE SANGH	COPY AM.	OF	THE	BYE-LAW O	F THE
Exhibit P2	TRUE 29.11	COPY .2021 I	OF N WPC	THE NO.2	JUDGMENT 337/2020.	DATED
Exhibit P3	TRUE	COPY	OF	THE	NOTICE	DATED
	06.01 RESPO	.2022 NDENT.	ISS	UED	BY THE	1ST
Exhibit P4	TRUE 14.01 RESPO	COPY .2022 NDENT.	OF ISS	THE UED	NOTICE BY THE	DATED 1ST
SR	//TR	UE COPY	//		PA TO J	UDGE

Biju K.R v. the Agricultural Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju K.R v. the Agricultural Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.G.S. Enterprises Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Peter K. Joseph Vs Goodness Media Pvt. Ltd.

Shahul Hameed Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Bluebell Infra Facilities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

The Quality Taluk Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited Vs the Kerala Medical Services Corporation

Sherin Ann Reji Vs State of Kerala