Kerala High Court
K.K.Janardhanan vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 10 October, 2014
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/18TH ASWINA, 1936
WP(C).No. 4539 of 2014 (N)
---------------------------
PETITIONER :
-------------------
K.K.JANARDHANAN,
VELIMANAM P.O., ARALAM, KANNUR DIST
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.V.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS :
----------------------
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KANNUR - 670001
2. THE ARALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO F 1515,
ARALAM, KANNUR DIST, REP BY ITS SECRETARY - 670604
3. K. J. THOMAS,
CONVENER, ADMINSTRATIVE COMMITTEE,
ARALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
ARALAM, KANNUR DIST-670704
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R. RENJITH
R3 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 4539 of 2014 (N)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 8880/2013 DTD 28/12/2013 ISSUED BY THE
IST RESPONDENT.
P2:- A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
TAHALSSERY PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT BANK STATING THAT HE IS AN EMPLOYEE IN THE SAID
SOCIETY.
P3:- A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN ARC 630 OF 2006-07 ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL)
KOOTUPARAMBA.
P4:- A TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION E P NO 512 OF 2012 OF THE
MUNSIFF COURT KOOTHUPARAMBA
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXT.R3(A): COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT 4/1/2014 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE THALASSERY PCARD BANK TO THE R3.
EXT.R3(B): COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE R3 DT 15/01/2014.
EXT.R3(C): COPY OF THE ORDER DT NIL SUSPENDING THE R3 W.E.F.18/01/2014.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 4539 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 10th October, 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the appointment of the 3rd respondent as the Convener of the 2nd respondent Society. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent is a defaulter to another Society and that the 3rd respondent was also an employee of yet another Society. The contention of the petitioner is that Rule 44(1) (f) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, prohibits a paid employee of the Society or of any other Society being appointed as a member of the Committee. Clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 44 of the Rules also mandates that a defaulter to any Society shall also be dis-entitled from being a member of the Committee.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would contend that despite Ext.P3 Award WP(C).4539/14 2 being passed against the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent has approached the creditor Bank and obtained time to pay off the defaulted amounts. Though it is admitted that the 3rd respondent was the employee of another Society, the contention is that, he is under suspension and hence, he could continue as the Convener of the Committee. The suspension admittedly, is on account of his appointment as the Convener of the 2nd respondent Society.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader, (Co-operation), however submits that Rule 44 of the Rules may not be applicable in the case of appointment of members to the Administrative Committee, in which the Registrar has a wide discretion as per Section 33 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short 'the Act'). Even a person, who is not a member, is entitled to be appointed as per the specific provision in the Statute, is the contention. It is WP(C).4539/14 3 an accepted position that the Registrar has a wide discretion in appointing persons to the Administrative Committee of a Society and that even a person who is not a member of the Society, can be so appointed, as per Section 33(b) of the Act. However, in exercising such discretion, it cannot be said that the Registrar can act contrary to the provisions made in the Rules and without looking into the antecedents of a person.
4. It is to be emphasized that when an Administrative Committee is appointed and one of them is appointed as the Convener, definitely the antecedents of such members have to be verified. The appointment of an Administrator or Administrative Committee is a stop gap arrangement by which the entire management of the Society is entrusted in the hands of such persons appointed. If the antecedents of any such person does not inspire confidence of a reasonable person, then such appointment if made, would not be a proper WP(C).4539/14 4 exercise of discretion.
5. There is definitely no disqualification as to the appointment of administrator, either in the Statute or the Rules. Though even an outsider could be appointed under Section 33; a person who would otherwise be disqualified from being elected and continued as a Committee member cannot be appointed to the Administrative Committee. The 3rd respondent, who is a member of the 2nd respondent Society, undisputedly, would not be entitled to be appointed as a Committee member in the teeth of Rule 44 of the Rules. By reason only of the accidental fact of the Managing Committee's term, having expired without due elections being conducted, a person who would otherwise be disqualified for standing in the election and to be appointed as a Committee member, cannot be placed in the pivotal position of the Convener of the Committee which handles the day-to-day affairs of the Society.
WP(C).4539/14 5
6. Surely a person who is not a member of the Society could also be appointed as an Administrator or as a member of the Administrative Committee; but that is not to say that any person could be appointed at the whim and pleasure of the Registrar. The specific words employed is 'discretion of the Registrar' and a Court especially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be competent to look into whether such exercise of discretion was proper and reasonable. Such discretion is conferred on the Registrar only to tide over situations, in which a duly elected Committee of the members cannot be put in office or continued thereon. A member or a non-member who would normally and as per the statutory rigour would be disqualified from being elected to a Committee would hence be an excessive baggage on the Society and a liability to its affairs.
7. The discretion exercised by the Registrar WP(C).4539/14 6 in appointing the 3rd respondent as the Convener of the Society, hence is found to be an improper exercise of discretion. It is to be noticed that despite the fact that the creditor Bank had granted time to the 3rd respondent, it does not deviate from the fact that he remains to be a defaulter as indicated in clause (c) especially since an Award has been passed and there is no satisfaction of the amounts. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that he is not sure as to whether satisfaction of the amounts has been made. De hors his status as a defaulter, the fact that he is employed in another Society, would have disqualified him from being appointed as a Committee member. The suspension said to have been made is on the ground that he has been appointed as the Convener of the Society. There was no compulsion on the 3rd respondent to accept the appointment made by the Registrar and despite his suspension; the fact remains that he was a paid employee of the Society, when he was appointed as WP(C).4539/14 7 Convener of the Administrative Committee of the 2nd respondent.
8. Having found the 3rd respondent to be disqualified to be appointed as the Convener of the Administrative Committee, the 3rd respondent shall immediately relinquish his charge of the Convener and the Registrar shall appoint one of the two remaining members as the Convener with immediate effect. The prescription in sub-clause (b) of Section 33 is only that the Administrative Committee shall not be more than three members.
The writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//