Disposed

M.Krishnaprasad v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Kerala HC13 Feb 2024WP(C)/1004/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to the Registrar to consider a petition challenging the nomination of expert members not meeting statutory criteria. The Court directed the Registrar to decide within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 within 45 days with notice to all concerned.

M.Krishnaprasad Vs The Registrar of Co-operative… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 24TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 1004 OF 2024

¶3

PETITIONER:

¶4

M.KRISHNAPRASAD
AGED68YEARS
S/OMADHAVANPILLAI,KRISHNANJALI,
ERUVAWEST,ERUVAP.O,KAYAMKULAM,
ALAPPUZHA,PIN-690572

¶5

BYADVS.
P.N.MOHANAN
C.P.SABARI
AMRUTHASURESH
GILROYROZARIO

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1THEREGISTRAROFCO-OPERATIVESOCIETIES
DEPARTMENTOFCO-OPERATION,
OFFICEOFTHEREGISTRAROFCO-OPERATIVESOCIETIES,
JAWAHARSAHAKARANABHAVAN,DPIJUNCTION,
THYCAUDP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN-695014
2PATHIYOORFARMERSSERVICECO-OPERATIVEBANKLTD
1282,REPRESENTEDBYITSSECRETARY,
KEERIKKADP.O.,PATHIYOOR,ALAPPUZHA,
PIN-690502
3SABDULLATHEEF
(MEMBERNO.A13212)NOORATTUDARUSSIRAJ,
MALAMEELBHAGOM,KAYAMKULAM,ALAPPUZHA.,
PIN-690572
4SARASANP
(MEMBERNO.A13085)PORUNILAVEEDU,
PATHIYOORTHOTTAMPATHIYOORP,O,
KAYAMKULAM,
ALAPPUZHA,PIN-690572

¶8

W.P.(C).1004 of 2024

¶9

¶10

BYADVS.
ARUNCHANDRAN
HARIMOHAN(K/000327/2018)
ANJALYT.A(K/1694/2020)
ASWATHYSMENON(K/2316/2023)
ARJUNRAGHAVAN(K/1277/2012)

¶11

SRITRHARIKUMAR,SCFOROATHIYOORFARMERSSERVICE
CO-OPERATIVEBANK

¶12

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
13.02.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).1004 of 2024

JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is a member of Pathiyoor Farmers

¶17

Service Co-operative Bank. According to the petitioner, the second respondent, Society is registered and governed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short, the ‘KCS Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder and found for the welfare of farmers. The grievance of the petitioner centers around the nomination of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as expert members. The specific contention of the petitioner is that they are not persons who have acquired any qualification to fulfill the criteria prescribed under Section 28(IG) of the KCS Act. It is contended that being aggrieved, the petitioner has stated to have submitted Ext.P2 application before the first respondent seeking to rescind the nomination of respondents 3 and 4 by exercising the powers under Rule 176 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short, KCS Rules, 1969), as according to him, their nomination is clearly in violation of the provisions of against Section 28(IG) of the KCS Act. It is on these assertions that this

¶18

W.P.(C).1004 of 2024

¶19

¶20

writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶21

i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P1 and P2 in accordance with law by exercising the power under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules.

¶22

ii) declare that the respondents 3 and 4 are not entitled to continue in the managing committee as expert members in terms of Section 28(1G) of the KCS Act.

¶23

Sri. P.N. Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing or the petitioner, would highlight the qualification and the lack thereof to assert that the party respondent does not fulfill the criteria as prescribed under Section 28(IG) of the KCS Act; it is further submitted by the learned counsel that his limited request is for issuance of directions to the first respondent to consider Ext. P2 and take a decision in accordance with law.

¶24

A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent wherein it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable. According to the second respondent, though what is challenged is the nomination of the party respondents, in essence, it is akin to an election, and if that be the case, only the statutory authority under Section 69 of the Act can entertain

¶25

W.P.(C).1004 of 2024

¶26

¶27

the dispute. It is further submitted that the power of the Registrar under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules cannot be invoked for rescinding the resolution.

¶28

The respondents 3 and 4 have also filed counter affidavits on the same lines. It is contended that the party respondents have garnered the requisite experience by the years of service rendered by them, and if that be the case, the action of the society in co-opting them as expert members is unexceptionable.

¶29

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶30

Ext. P2 is a petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 176 of

¶31

the KCS Rules, which empowers the Registrar to rescind the resolution. Rule 176 states that notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of a registered society, it shall be competent for the Registrar to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or the committee of any society, if it appears to him that such resolution is ultra vires of the objects of the society, or is against the provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye-laws or of any direction or instructions issued by the Department, or calculated to disturb

¶32

the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is contrary to the better

¶33

W.P.(C).1004 of 2024

¶34

¶35

interest of the society. It has been held by this Court that when a resolution is found to be ex-facie inconsistent with provisions of law or by laws of the society, the Registrar has the power to rescind the same. As Ext.P2 is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, I am of the view that necessary directions can be issued to consider the same with notice to all concerned.

¶36

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass expeditious orders on Ext.P2 with notice to the petitioner and the affected parties and take a decision within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

SD/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

DCS

W.P.(C).1004 of 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1004/2024

¶42

PETITIONEREXHIBITS

¶43

ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHEPETITIONDATED21.12.2023
FILEDMR.REMESHBEFOREFIRSTRESPONDENT
ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEPETITIONDATED01.01.2024
BEFORETHEFIRSTRESPONDENT

M.Krishnaprasad v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Krishnaprasad v. The Registrar 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

S Biju Vs Special Sale Officer

Manoharan Kuniyil Pilakkavi Vs Kannur Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Arumughan Vs Vallanghi-Vithanassery Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.,NO.282

Shaheed P.K Vs the State of Kerala

Ahammed Kutty Vs C v M Sharief

Sobhana Vs 1. the District Collector, Kollam