IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10057 of 2010(F)
1. A.R.SUJIL, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, PAI ROAD,
... Petitioner
2. AJITHAKUMARI, VELIYATH HOUSE,
3. V.S.SUGATHAN, KAYYATHARA HOUSE,
4. JOHN FERNANDEZ, MATTAMMAL THUNDIYIL
Vs
1. THE MATTANCHERRY MAHAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION,
4. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER,
5. THE RETURNING OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :29/03/2010
O R D E R
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 10057 OF 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Clause
30(i) of Ext.P2 bye laws of the first respondent bank. The
petitioners are members of the first respondent bank. The third
respondent has notified elections to the managing committee of
the first respondent as per Ext.P1. Though the petitioners want to
contest the election as candidates, they are ineligible to do so in
view of Clause 30(i) of the bye laws. The said clause stipulates that
a member shall be eligible to be elected as the director only if he
has been a shareholder member of the bank for at least two
continuous years prior to the date of election and has maintained a
deposit account with the bank for a continuous period of two years
with a credit balance of not less than Rs.500/-. According to the
petitioners this clause is in direct conflict with the provisions of the
Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules thereunder. Therefore, the
petitioners have sought for a declaration that Clause 30(i) of Ext.P1
bye laws and a corresponding clause to the said effect in Ext.P1
notification disentitling the petitioners from contesting as
WPC 10057/2010 2
candidates at the election that has been notified is illegal and
arbitrary.
2. A reading of the clause gives an impression that it has
been intended only for the purpose of ensuing that persons who
have been active members of the bank for the stipulated period
alone are permitted to contest the elections. No specific provision
of the Act or the Rules with which the provision of the bye law is in
direct conflict, has been brought to my notice. However, I do not
propose to consider the merits of the claim that is made in this writ
petition for the reason that the petitioners can raise their complains
before the second respondent who is clothed with ample powers to
decide the same.
3. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of
directing the petitioners to approach the first respondent by
submitting a proper representation detailing their grievances. If
such a representation is submitted within a period of ten days from
today, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance
with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a
period of two weeks thereafter.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
The words “first respondent” occurring in the 3rd paragraph of
WPC 10057/2010 3
the judgment dated 29/3/2010 in WP(C) 10057/2010 are corrected
as “second respondent” as per order dated 27/5/2010 in
I.A.6563/2010 in WP(C) 10057/2010.
Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)
WPC 10057/2010 4
K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.
—————————————————-
M.F.A.NO:
—————————————————–
JUDGMENT
Dated: