Kerala High Court
K.K.Saidu Muhammad vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 21 August, 2020
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar, K.Haripal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1942
WA.No.1100 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14172/2020(V)DATED 07.08.2020 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.K.SAIDU MUHAMMAD,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. KUNJU, KUNNATH HOUSE, BEACH ROAD, CHAVAKKAD POST
OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 680506.
BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL),
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 680001,
2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES(GENERAL)
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES(GENERAL), CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-680506.
3 THE CHAVAKKAD FARKHA COOPERATIVE RURAL BANK LIMITED
NO. F.1250.
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 680506,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4 C.A. GOPAPRATHAPAN,
CHOZHIRAKATH HOUSE, THIRUVATHRA, THIRUVATHRA POST,
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 680516.
5 K.J. CHACKO
KAKKASSERY HOUSE, ORUMANAYOOR, ORUMANAYOOR POST
OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE -
680512.
W.A.1100/2020 :2:
6 BINDU NARAYANAN
CHAKYAR PARAMBU BINDU NIVAS, NORTH NADA, GURUVAYUR,
GURUVAYUR POST OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE -
680501.
7 MEERA GOPALAKRISHNAN,
VEETTIKKIZHI HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR, GURUVAYUR,
GURUVAYUR POST OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE -
680501,
8 DEVIKA NARAYANAN
VENKIDA HOUSE, KOZHIKKULANGARA, CHAVAKKAD POST
OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 680506.,
9 ADDL.R9. NIYAZ HAMMED
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. A.V. MOIDHU, AMBALATHU VEETTIL HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR
VILLAGE, THRIKKADAVU DESOM, POST ORUMANAYUR, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 680512.
10 ADDL R10, ABDUL SALAM
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.HUSSIN MUZALIYAR, MUZALIYAR MANZIL, PAVARATTI
VILLAGE, PUVATHOOR DESAM, POST PUVATHOOR, CHAVAKKAD
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 680555.
11 ADDL R.11, ABOOBACKER
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.MOIDHU, PUTHANPURAIL KALEERAKATH HOUSE,
KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, MADU DESAM, POST MADU, CHAVAKKAD
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 680512.
SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.ANANDAKRISHNAN FOR R1&2
ADV.SRI.RAJIT FOR RESPONDENTS-
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.08.2020, THE
COURT ON 21.08.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.1100/2020 :3:
JUDGMENT
Haripal, J.
Appellant is the petitioner in W.P(C) No.14172/2020, a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the Ext.P1 dated 10.07.2020, a notice issued by the 2 nd respondent, Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, convening a meeting of the members of the Managing Committee of the 3 rd respondent for considering a no confidence motion moved against the appellant, who is the President of the Chavakkad Farkha Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. No.F-1250 and to quash the same.
2. Admittedly, the appellant is the President of the Board of Directors of the said Bank, elected in 2018. When a no confidence motion was moved, the 2nd respondent issued the Ext.P1 notice intimating the members of the Board to be present in the head office of the Bank at 11.00 A.M. on 21.07.2020. The legality of the notice was challenged on two grounds, namely, that it does not conform to Rule 43-A(ii) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, as the meeting was sought to be convened without giving fifteen days clear notice; secondly, it was contended that he is W.A.1100/2020 :4:
aged 71 years, and therefore, it is not advisable to convene a meeting in the midst of large-scale spread of Covid-19 infection. In elaboration of the point it is contended that the Society is located in and its nearby places are declared containment zones due to the increase in the number of infected persons. Since a no confidence motion is moved against him, his presence in the meeting is very important. The general guidelines issued by the State/Central Governments do not encourage such a gathering. Despite the same, respondents 1 and 2 have issued such a notice in unwanted haste.
3. The writ petition was filed on 14.07.2020. After hearing counsel on both sides, by the judgment dated 07.08.2020, the learned single Judge rejected both the contentions, against the appellant. Relying on authorities, the learned Judge held that provision under Rule 43-A(ii) of the Rules is not mandatory unless the person aggrieved demonstrates that prejudice is caused for not having given fifteen days notice. As the appellant had failed to prove any such prejudice, challenge under Rule 43-A(ii) was found against him.
4. Regarding the second aspect also, the Court noticed that since the motion is against the appellant, he has no right to vote and his presence or absence in the meeting has no significance. Referring W.A.1100/2020 :5:
to some documents produced by the respondents the Court noticed that despite the hazards pointed out by the appellant, he had been present in various meetings of the committee of the Society held on various days. Thus, that contention was also rejected by the Court. The learned Judge also noticed that the attempt of the appellant is to protract the no confidence motion moved against him and thus the writ petition was dismissed. The Court also proceeded to direct the 1 st respondent to cause a meeting on 26.08.2020 at the same time and place mentioned in Ext.P1. It was also observed that the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents 4 to 11 had agreed that no fresh notice need be issued to them. The 1st respondent was directed to cause notice to the other members of the committee.
5. In the writ appeal, it is stated that the observation that his counsel had agreed that no fresh notice be issued, is incorrect. Whatever it may be, having failed to convince the Court the grounds urged in support of the appellant, now the learned counsel for the appellant is skeptical about the direction issued by the learned Judge to convene the meeting on 26.08.2020. According to the learned counsel, the Court has no power to fix a date for the meeting and that the Court cannot arrogate to itself the functions of the statutory W.A.1100/2020 :6:
authority. In support of the argument, he placed reliance on State of Kerala v. Thilothaman [1992 KHC 332] and Anilbhai M. Patel and others v. Suryapur Bank Agent D.B.H. Samiti and others [2007 KHC 3251]. The propositions laid down in the decisions cannot be disputed. At the same time, we have no doubt that the authorities relied on by the learned counsel cannot help the appellant. Thilothaman (quoted supra) deals with a case in which a learned single Judge had directed to hold election to a co-operative society on or before a particular date. Intervening in the matter, the Division Bench of this Court held that it is for the Administrator to exercise his power under Rule 35(1) of the Rules, that the Court cannot exercise the power and cannot fix a date for election. The other decision centers around the appointment of an Administrator for the management of a Society and, in that context the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the co-operative society should normally be allowed to function through its elected representatives, statutory functionaries alone can perform their functions, that court cannot arrogate to itself the functions of the statutory authority. Both the decisions turned upon its own facts and cannot be applied to the facts of this case.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed W.A.1100/2020 :7:
out that in the writ petition filed on 14.07.2020, on being represented that two of the members who have to participate in the meeting were in containment zone, the learned single Judge was persuaded to grant an interim stay of the proceedings. In fact, such a stay was obtained by suppressing material facts, that it was taking into account that fact also that the learned Judge had proceeded to fix a date for considering the no confidence motion. The learned counsel also relied on the decisions reported in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [Laws (SC) 1993 101] and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. [Laws (SC) 2012 1050]. It is not necessary for us to go into this aspect. Only thing is whether there is any legal impediment in fixing a date for deliberating the no confidence motion, as did by the learned single Judge.
7. As noticed earlier, two grounds urged in support of the contentions assailing the Ext.P1 notice are found non est. Basing on the representation of the appellant, the Court had granted interim stay of the proceedings. After finding that the appellant could not make out a case warranting interference and realising that it was a strategy adopted by the appellant to protract the proceedings, that while dismissing the writ petition, the Court went ahead and fixed a date for W.A.1100/2020 :8:
convening the meeting. As a matter of fact, the managing committee of the Bank has only 13 members in the Board. Even if all the members are present, their gathering along with officials would not violate the guidelines issued by the State or Central Government. Moreover, it has become clear that the consideration of the motion was put off due to the volitions of the appellant, the Court is justified in fixing a date without further prolonging the matter. We do not find any illegality in the decision and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge. It is only to be confirmed.
The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is only to be dismissed. Dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE Sd/-
K.HARIPAL JUDGE okb/20.08.2020 //True copy// P.S. to Judge