JUDGMENT
T. L. Viwanatha Iyer, J.
1. The petitioner is the secretary of the Electricity Board Employees Co-operative Society (“the society” for short). The petitioner was a member of the managing committee (“the committee” for short) of the society which was elected on October 11, 1985. The term of the committee was three years, as the bye-law stood then. But the general body of the society has passed a resolution exhibit P-1 on April 28, 1985, to extend the term of the committee to five years. It is said that an application, exhibit P-2, for registering the amendment of the bye-laws, was sent to the second respondent, Assistant Registrar, on May 2, 1985, but the matter has not been dealt with or orders passed so far. In the absence of any reply to exhibit P-2, the committee passed a resolution on June 19, 1988, proposing to hold an election to elect a new managing committee on September 9, 1988, and requesting the second respondent to appoint a returning officer for the purpose of holding the election. Since the term of the managing committee was expiring on June 30, 1988, they also made a request to the Joint Registrar to extend its term till September 9, 1988. Copies of the resolution were forwarded to the second respondent along with exhibit P-1, dated April 28, 1985, but instead of acceding to the request made, the first respondent, Joint Registrar, appointed an administrator for the society by his proceedings, exhibit P-5, dated July 6, 1988. The reason stated was that the committee was overstaying its term, after June 30, 1988, and, therefore, a part-time administrator had to be appointed to manage its affairs. This proceeding, exhibit P-5, was passed without following the procedure prescribed in Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (“the Act”) as the first respondent felt “convinced” that it was not reasonably practicable to publish the notice contemplated in the section. The petitioner filed this original petition challenging exhibit P-5, and obtained an interim order of stay of appointment of the administrator. The order of stay has continued till this date and it is said that the elected committee continues to manage the affairs of the society.
2. There is no counter-affidavit filed by any of the respondents. But, it is stated at the hearing by the learned Government Pleader that the second respondent has not received the application, exhibit P-2, for registration of the amendment to the bye-laws. He also seeks to justify the appointment of the administrator.
3. In the face of the denial of receipt of exhibit P-2 by the respondents, it cannot be said that there is any failure on their part to consider the application for registration of the amendment of the bye-laws. The only question that, therefore, arises for consideration is whether exhibit P-5 is illegal for any reason.
4. The committee elected on October 11, 1985, had continued in office till June 30, 1988. There is no controversy about it. They had also passed a resolution to hold an election to the managing committee on September 9, 1988, with a request for appointment of a returning officer and for extension of the committee’s term till September 9, 1988. It was then that the Joint Registrar imposed the administrator on the society.
5. The appointment of an administrator is a matter of serious import for the society and its members. Thereby, the democratically elected committee is superseded and a nominee of the department assumes control and management of the society. The rights of the members to have the administration carried on by their duly elected representatives stand suspended. The normal mode of functioning for any such society is through its elected managing committee. If this is to be given the go-by, it should only be for valid grounds, and after due and strict compliance with the provisions of the statute governing the matter. Section 33 justifies the appointment of an administrator in certain circumstances. The fact that a new committee cannot be constituted before the expiry of the term of office of the existing committee is a ground for appointing an administrator under Section 33(1). The proviso to Section 33(1), however, enjoins that, before appointing an administrator, the Registrar shall publish a notice on the notice board of the head office of the society inviting objections to the appointment, within a time to be specified and consider the objections, if any, received. This pre-requisite of publication of notice could be dispensed with if the Registrar is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to do so.
6. From the facts of this case, it is clear that there is nothing stated against the managing committee except that they have overstayed their term. That is not by itself a ground for the Registrar to be satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to publish the notice envisaged by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 33. The normal mode of appointment of an administrator under Section 33 is after publishing a notice, and after considering the objections, if any, received to the proposal. It is only in extraordinary cases that this procedure can be bypassed. The circumstances of the case should be such that it will be unwise or impracticable to leave the affairs of the society any longer in the hands of the existing managing committee, or that a stalemate has occurred in the functioning of the committee or that an urgency of such a nature exists that it is not possible to publish such notice before appointing an administrator. In the absence of any such circumstances, the Registrar is bound to follow the normal rule, publish a notice and invite and consider objections before appointing, an administrator. Cases where the committee has an unblemished record and there is nothing against it except the overstayal of the term, are not ipso facto factors for dispensing with the notice. The Registrar is, in fact, given a discretion in such circumstances to act under rule 39(2) to extend the term of the committee, implying thereby that overstayal does not by itself spell the supersession of the committee or the appointment of an administrator. No circumstances have been placed before us justifying the dispensing with the notice, except bald statements at the Bar that it was not reasonable or practicable to publish a notice. The satisfaction of the Registrar has to be based on relevant materials and cogent circumstances and not on mere whims and fancies. His action under Section 33 has to be reasonable. It should be based on reasons germane to the proper and efficient administration of the society and to the grounds mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 33. As stated earlier, the respondents have not pointed out any such circumstances and I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the order, exhibit P-5, is null and void and not in accord with the first proviso to Section 33.
7. Exhibit P-5 has, therefore, to be quashed. The managing committee has continued in office by virtue of the interim order passed by this court. It is only, therefore, proper that it is permitted to hold the election to elect the succeeding committee. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are, therefore, directed to ensure that the managing committee represented by the petitioner is permitted to hold elections to the new managing committee on or before February 28, 1990. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will ensure that the elections are so held. They will also appoint a returning officer for the purpose as and when applied for by the society. The requisite resolution for holding the elections as stated above shall be passed by the managing committee of the society on or before December 31, 1989.
8. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are also directed to extend the term of the managing committee of the society in question under rule 39(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules till and inclusive of February 28, 1990.
9. The original petition is allowed as stated above. There will be no order as to costs.
