IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 19522 of 2006(Y)
1. K.K.VISWANATHAN MASTER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES,
... Respondent
2. K.NARAYANAN, ASST.REGISTRAR OF
3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES
4. GENERAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :10/08/2006
O R D E R
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO. 19522 OF 2006
------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2006
JUDGMENT
Challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the first respondent – Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
The reliefs sought for by the petitioner are to quash Ext.P4 and to give a direction
to the first respondent to nominate the representatives of the Government in the
committee of the District Co-operative Bank, Wayanad.
2. The petitioner is the Vice President of the District Co-operative Bank,
Wayanad. The management of the Bank is by a committee constituted both
under Section 28 and 31 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 31 of the Act deals with the power
of the Government to nominate their nominees to the managing committee if the
apex society to protect the interest of the Government. Section 28 of the Act
deals with the appointment of the committee members by the general body of the
apex or central society. The committee of the petitioner’s bank consists of ten
members, seven members appointed by the general body and three members
W.P.(C)NO.19522/2006 2
nominated by the Government. Out of the ten committee members one died and
one resigned from the Bank and the three members nominated by the
Government also submitted their resignation. In such circumstances, there was
no quorum for the functioning of the committee and the Registrar, the authority
as per law, intervened and appointed an Administrator as per Ext.P4 order to
look after the day-to-day affairs of the Bank.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the committee
of the bank will not cease to exist only on account of the resignation of the
members nominated by the Government and the resignation of one of the elected
members of the committee even though there occurred stalemate. The
petitioner has another contention that the resignation letters submitted by the
nominated members were not handed over to the President as per Rule 38 of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Rules”). It is the further case of the petitioner that though Section 33 of the Act
enables the Registrar to appoint an Administrator for a specific period in order to
overcome the stalemate that occurred in the functioning of the committee, unless
and until the term of the committee has expired, it cannot be said that the
committee does not exist as far as the Bank is concerned. The petitioner also has
a case that when the resignation submitted by the nominated members are
accepted, it is the duty of the Government or the competent authority to nominate
fresh members as contemplated under Section 31 of the Act and Rule 37 of the
W.P.(C)NO.19522/2006 3
Rules.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel
appearing for the 4th respondent, General Manager of the Bank. Considering the
questions raised, it can be seen that as per Section 31 of the Act and Rule 37 of
the Rules, the Government can nominate members and the committee can be
constituted under Rule 38 of the Rules on following the procedures prescribed
therein. It is an admitted fact that one of the elected committee member died and
another resigned. It is also an admitted fact that three of the members nominated
by the Government submitted their resignation letters which were accepted.
That means there is no quorum for the committee to function. At this juncture,
it is the duty of the authority to appoint an officer as Administrator to look after
the day-to-day affairs of the Bank and the first respondent has done so by Ext.P4
order. Hence, this Court is of the view that Ext.P4 is perfectly valid and
justifiable.
5. With regard to the contention that as and when the members
nominated by the Government resigned and their resignation was accepted, it was
the duty of the Government or the competent authority to nominate such
members so as to revive the functioning of the committee, it is to be noted that
even though as per the provisions of Rule 37 of the Rules, it is the duty of the
Government or the competent authority to nominate fresh members, the necessity
W.P.(C)NO.19522/2006 4
of such nomination should be brought to the notice of the competent authority by
the remaining members of the committee. This Court is not expected to give a
direction to that effect. It is left to the petitioner or the remaining members of
the committee to file a representation before the Government or the authority
concerned to nominate members as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules so
as to fill up the quorum of the committee. If such a representation is received by
the authority concerned, the same shall be considered according to law.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)
sp/
W.P.(C)NO.19522/2006 5
C.R.
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
W.P.(C)NO.19522/2006
JUDGMENT
W.P.(C)NO.19522/2006 6
10TH AUGUST, 2006.