Kerala High Court
Shaji Mohan vs The State Of Kerala on 12 June, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
W.A.No.1348 of 2025
2025:KER:42814
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 1348 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.15817 OF 2025 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHAJI MOHAN
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY PANICKER, PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE
CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
LTD., RESIDING AT SIVAKRIPA, CHERTHALA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688524
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 M. SAJEER
(ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR CREDIT), OFFICE OF THE
REGISTRAR OF THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANAGING
W.A.No.1348 of 2025
2
2025:KER:42814
DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 M. SHAJAHAN
DELEGATE, KILIMANOOR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL RURAL
DEVELOPMENT BANK, NEAR SARALA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
KILIMANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695601
5 R SOMAN PILLAI
DELEGATE, KARUNAGAPALLY PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL RURAL
DEVELOPMENT BANK, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690518
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.M.A.ASIF
SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SHRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
AG SR GP SRI P.P THAJUDHEEN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1348 of 2025
3
2025:KER:42814
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2025 Amit Rawal, J.
The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 03.06.2025 rejecting the interim prayer to keep in abeyance the no-confidence motion against the elected Managing Committee of the Apex Society namely Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd, sought in the writ petition claiming the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for records and leading to Exhibits P6 to P8 and to quash the same as the same being contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court;
ii. Issue a writ declaring that the delegate of a member society cannot be equated to the status of a member for moving a no-confidence motion as provided in Exhibit P5;
iii. Issue a writ declaring that the
amendment made as per Exhibit P5 is
unconstitutional and against the scheme under which the election to the Managing Committee is held and it is arbitrary and bad in law;W.A.No.1348 of 2025 4
2025:KER:42814
(iii)(a) Issue a writ declaring that the permission granted to the delegate from Kattakada PCARD Bank and the delegate from Vadakara PCARD Bank is without the sanction of law and therefore the said vote is required to be excluded;
(iii)(b) Issue a writ of declaring that by allowing the nominated members in the Board of Directors to cast vote in the no confidence motion is contrary to the specific prohibition as contained in Section 31(2A) and (3) of Section 31 of the KCS Act and their votes are required to be excluded.
(iii)(c) Issue a writ declaring that the vote cast by the three elected members in the Board of Directors who are part of the corporate body in favour of the no confidence motion cannot be counted as they are disabled from casting the vote in favour of the no confidence motion as long as they continue as part of the corporate body;
iv. Dispense with the filing of English translation of vernacular documents;
v. Grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
W.A.No.1348 of 20255
2025:KER:42814
2. The writ petition is based upon certain averments that in the past also there have been an attempt to pass no confidence motion against the then elected and appointed Administrative Committee of the Apex Society. There had been series of litigations in the year 2021 and by virtue of the aforementioned, though the elections of the Apex Society was held in March, 2023, but the elected members were not permitted to assume the office owing to the litigations and it was only in September, 2023 they could assume the office. There was again a dispute of convening of the General Body Meeting and by virtue of the interim order dated 03.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No.34636 of 2024, Registrar of Co-operative Societies had been directed to restore the administration of the elected Managing Committee provisionally, subject to further orders of this Court and with a further direction to convene fresh General Body Meeting to discuss the unfinished Agenda of the last General Body Meeting forthwith.
3. On 03.04.2025, the State Government caused an W.A.No.1348 of 2025 6 2025:KER:42814 amendment by introducing Rule 43C in the Kerala Co- Operative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 2025 (hereinafter called the Amendment Rules, 2025) dealing with the motion of no-confidence for removal of the managing committee of the Apex Society by General Body. The said Rule 43C reads as follows:-
"43C. Motion of no confidence for removal of Managing Committee by General Body.- (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Managing Committee of a Society/Bank shall be moved in accordance with the procedure laid down herein.
(2) Written notice of intention to move any motion referred to in sub-rule (1) signed by such number of members of the Society/Bank shall constitute not less than one-third of the total members together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be moved shall be delivered to the Registrar, in person, by any of the two members of the Society/Bank signing the notice.
(3) The Registrar or any officer authorised by him shall convene a meeting of the General Body of the Society/Bank for the consideration of the motion, to be held at the office of the Society/Bank at a date and time appointed by the Registrar or any officer authorised by him which shall not be later than thirty W.A.No.1348 of 2025 7 2025:KER:42814 days from the date on which the notice under sub- rule(2) is delivered to the Registrar. (4) The Registrar or any officer authorised by him shall cause to publish/affix a notice on the notice board of the head office of the Society/Bank indicating the date, time and agenda, at least fifteen days prior to such meeting of the General Body to be held, for the knowledge of the members of General Body.
(5) A meeting convened under this rule shall be presided over by the Registrar or any officer authorised by him.
(6) A meeting convened for the purpose of considering the motion under this rule shall not be adjourned except for reasons beyond human control.
No meeting under this rule shall be held, if at the time appointed under the foregoing provisions or, within half an hour from such time, such number of members as shall constitute the quorum of the General Body of the Society/Bank prescribed in the bye- laws of the Society/Bank are not present. (7) As soon as the meeting convened under this rule has commenced, the officer presiding shall read at the meeting the motion for the consideration of which it has been convened and declared it to be open for debate.
(8) No debate on any motion under this rule shall be adjourned except for reasons beyond human control. (9) A debate on any no-confidence motion shall W.A.No.1348 of 2025 8 2025:KER:42814 automatically terminate on the expiry of three hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting. If it is not concluded earlier and upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of such period of three hours as the case may be, the motion shall be put to vote.
(10) The officer presiding shall not speak on the merit/demerit of the motion, and shall not be entitled to vote thereon.
(11) The copy of the minutes of the meeting together with the copy of the motion and the result of the voting therein shall forthwith, on the termination of the meeting, be forwarded to the Registrar by the officer presiding the meeting.
(12) If the motion is carried with the support of the majority of the number of members of the General Body, the Managing Committee which lost the confidence shall cease to hold office thereafter and shall be deemed to be vacant forthwith, and the Registrar shall issue an order appointing an Administrator or Administrative Committee in accordance with the provisions of section 33 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. (13) If the motion is not carried by such majority as aforesaid or the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, under sub-rule (6), no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same Managing Committee shall be received until after the expiry of six months from the date of W.A.No.1348 of 2025 9 2025:KER:42814 meeting or the date fixed for the motion, as the case may be."
Complete procedure has been prescribed for holding the no-confidence motion, constitution of not less than 1/3rd of the total members together with a copy of motion, the manner of publication, convening of the meetings, cessation of the appointed committee on passing of the no- confidence motion and in case of failure of the no confidence motion, a bar of bringing the no-confidence motion only after the expiry of six months.
4. In the instant case, on 04.04.2025 in the General Body Meeting of the Apex Society, the delegatees of all the primary societies participated and twenty nine (29) persons moved the no confidence motion against the elected members of the Managing Committee of the Apex Society assumed the charge in September, 2023. According to the Additional Registrar duly authorized, issued a notice on 04.04.2025 on the notice board and individual notices were sent on 09.04.2025 to all the members of the Apex Society, i.e., W.A.No.1348 of 2025 10 2025:KER:42814 the Primary Societies, to send their delegatees in the ensuing meeting of the no-confidence motion.
5. The requirement of law for convening no confidence motion has to be preceded by a notice of alteast Fifteen (15) days. 15 days in the instant case, according to the contention of the respondents, fell on 24.09.2025. On that day, not only the respondents or delegatees of other Primary Co-operative Societies, but also the appellant being one of the delegatees and member of the Primary Society participated in the no-confidence motion. The total number of members of the Primary Societies participated in the no-confidence motion of the Apex Society is 77. Out of that, 40 cast vote in favour of the no-confidence motion whereas 37 against the no confidence motion. Thus it sufficed the requirement of 1/3rd, provided in Sub Rule 2 of Rule 43C of the Amendment Rules, 2025. Considering that aspect, the writ petition was filed assailing the aforementioned procedure and this Court, vide interim order permitted the holding of W.A.No.1348 of 2025 11 2025:KER:42814 the no confidence motion, but declaration was kept in abeyance subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Bench did not extend the interim order for keeping the no confidence motion in abeyance, which is under challenge in this intra court appeal.
6. Mr.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Kavya Varma, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that for a particular purpose there cannot be a permanent delegation; in another words, once a delegatee cannot always be a delegatee. For two Primary Co-operative Societies, that is Kattakada and Vadakara unauthorised persons have been permitted to participate in the no confidence motion, therefore, in case those two votes are not counted and actual delegatees had been permitted to cast vote, probably the majority of no confidence motion would have failed. Noticing all these factors, this court had requested Adv.Thajudeen, special Government Pleader assisting the Advocate General, W.A.No.1348 of 2025 12 2025:KER:42814 Mr.Gopalakrishna Kurup, to produce the copies of all the resolutions received by the Additional Registrar from all the Primary Societies delegating the persons to caste votes. We have seen the aforementioned compendium and as far as Kattakada primary society is concerned, there is one resolution of 31.08.2021 authorizing one Sri.B.N.Syamkumar to attend the no confidence motion to be held on 24.04.2025. However, during the course of the hearing, we have also been handed over a resolution of 19.04.2025 passed by the Kattakada Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, authorizing to one Sri.Sanesh.S for attending the no confidence motion scheduled on 24.04.2025, which was stayed by the Joint Registrar (General) but has been under challenge in W.P. (C) No.17813 of 2025 and is under stay. For understanding the controversy in hand, we had also to summon the record of W.P.(C) No.17813 of 2025. In that background, the Registry attached the copy of the aforementioned writ petition.
W.A.No.1348 of 202513
2025:KER:42814
7. Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is a complete code, providing a procedure in case the Administrative Committee of the Society is dys-functional or taken over by the order of the Registrar and on account of the amendment caused therein, the Administrator appointed is required to appoint administrative committee of three members from the Society. The argument that the Vadakara Society was already under the control of the Administrative Committee and therefore, the appointment of Purushothaman being a member of the Administrative Committee cannot be a delagatee, thus was ineligible to caste the vote as a delagatee.
8. Various provisions of the Act like Sections 28AB, and 33; and Rules 44A and 46A of the Rules were referred to point out that there has to be specific delegation appointing a delegatee for the purpose of no confidence motion whereas the resolution of 04.04.2024 only deals with the member of the Society and not with regard to the no confidence motion. It was also contended by referring to W.A.No.1348 of 2025 14 2025:KER:42814 paragraph 52 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vipulbhai M.Chaudhary vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and others [(2015) 8 SCC], that in the absence of any provision in the rules, in case any of the elected body has assumed role, there should not be a no confidence motion for a period of two years. The series of the litigation would reveal that the Managing Director of the Apex Society being an IAS Officer in collusion with other persons had been hellbent to take over the Management of the Apex Society by one way or the other, resulting into a litigation. Such act would give a clear indication of usurpation of the power and therefore, the dictum laid down in Paragraph 52 of the Vipulbhai (supra) should be applicable as per the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
9. In an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.18983 of 2023 in Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) vs. State of Bihar and others decided on 02.04.2025, it was W.A.No.1348 of 2025 15 2025:KER:42814 contended that the constitutional courts are not only meant to protect the fundamental rights, but also to guard against the breach of the fundamental rights of others by the three organs of the State. This power is a plenary power resident in all the constitutional courts and should be in a given case, if found that there has been an egregious violation of a fundamental right as a result of operation of a subordinate legislation, that is legislation 43C in the instant case which is under challenge in the pending writ petition, the writ courts can deliver justice by declaring the subordinate legislation void to safeguard the rights of others.
10. Judgment of this Court in Devasia Chacko vs. Joint Registrar (1990 KHC 498) has been cited to contend that in the election of the Central Society the administrator of a member society would have no voting right. Also, Kurien vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies (1996 KHC 273) to point out that if the member of the Administrative Committee of District W.A.No.1348 of 2025 16 2025:KER:42814 Consumer Federation when sent as a delegatee to the Apex Federation, proviso to Rule 44 A clearly provides that neither the administrator nor a member of Administrative Committee can be a delegatee and therefore, the delegation in favour of a particular person was disqualification and the no confidence motion was liable to be dropped/ unsustainable. The judgment in Viswanathan vs. The Assistant Registrar (2001 KHC 696) is also cited to contend that a delegatee sent up by an Administrator in charge of the affairs of the primary society shall not be eligible to vote.
11. On the other hand, Mr.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Advocate General assisted by Sri.P.P.Thajudeen and Sri.Imam Gregorious Karat learned Government Pleaders and Sri.P.Ravindran learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents opposed the aforementioned contentions and submitted that the appellant cannot be permitted to challenge the passing of W.A.No.1348 of 2025 17 2025:KER:42814 the no confidence motion after having participated in the same. Cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold and volt- face, being unsuccessful to reject the no confidence motion. In view of the amendment in Section 33 of the Act, the Administrator is vested with the power, after having taken over the primary society, to appoint an Administrative Committee from the members of the society and Purushothaman was already a member of the Primary Society, therefore, being a part of Administrative Committee would not entail into disqualification for the purpose of participation and casting his vote in no confidence motion.
12. In support of the contentions, relied upon the judgment of this Court in Subairkunju vs. Kerala Co- operative Election Commission (2002 (3) KLT 9). Our attention was also drawn to similar provisions of Section 28AB and Rule 44 to contend that once a delegatee always a delegatee. The delegatees are appointed by way of an election in a Primary Co-operative Society and have to be W.A.No.1348 of 2025 18 2025:KER:42814 removed in the manner as provided under Section 28AB of the Act and not in any other manner. Thus any resolution passed appointing a different delegatee would be in deviation of the provisions of the aforementioned act.
13. Reliance was also laid to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Jose vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2007 (1) KLT 391) to contend that once a delegatee always a delegatee. As far as the contention with regard to the reliance of paragraph 52 in the Vipulbhai M. (supra), it was contended that the aforementioned ratio was culled out only in the absence of provisions in the rules. However, the amended rule of section 43C prevents the members of the Primary Societies to bring in no confidence motion in case of its failure only after expiry of six months. Therefore, the ratio in paragraph 52 would not be applicable. Moreover, all these points are pending consideration before the learned Single Bench and cannot be decided while entertaining the intra court appeal qua rejection stay of further actions pursuant W.A.No.1348 of 2025 19 2025:KER:42814 to the no confidence motion. It was also pointed out that the provisions of Section 33 would always come into force as the previously appointed/elected administrate committee of the Apex Society would cease to exist and the administrator would assume the charge with the liberty to appoint Administrative Committee consisting of a particular number of members in tandem with the provisions of the said Section.
14. We have heard counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge for the purpose of consideration of the interim application do not require or warrant any interference for, the provisions of Section 28AB and Rule 44A, which are extracted hereinbelow, would prima facie prove that once a delegatee always a delegatee. It will always be subject to the citation of the judgements supra and the learned Single Bench has not rendered finding to the merit of the matter,thus would not prejudice the right of the party in a pending litigation. W.A.No.1348 of 2025 20
2025:KER:42814 "28AB. Election and Removal of President, Vice President etc..(1)A committee constituted under sub-section (1) of section 28 shall elect from themselves a President, a Vice-President, a Treasurer or any other officer, by whatever name he is designated, in the manner as may be prescribed.
(2)A committee shall remove from office the President, Vice President or the Treasurer or any other officer of the committee if a motion expressing want of confidence in any or all of them is carried with the support of the majority of the members of such committee in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed.
44A . Delegate of Societies in the committee to another Society to be members of the committee - The person appointed to represent a society in any other society and vote shall be a member of the committee of the society which he represents:
Provided that if the affairs of the society are managed by Administrator / Administrators / Administrative Committee appointed under S.28 or S.32 or S.33 of the Act, the person or persons so appointed shall have power to nominate any member of the society to be its delegate in the other society and such delegate shall be eligible to W.A.No.1348 of 2025 21 2025:KER:42814 vote and to be elected as a member of the committee of the other society in which he sits as a delegate if he is otherwise qualified to be a delegate under the relevant rules."
15. As far as the resolution of the Kattakada Society is concerned, it is evident that Sri.B.N.Syamkumar was the member of the said society and was a delegatee appointed to participate in the General Body Meeting. In the General Body Meeting held on 04.04.2025 was in agreement with the other members in the functioning of the duly appointed Administrative Committee of the Apex Society, resulting into actuation of the no-confidence motion and its follow up by the Additional Registrar.
16. As far as the resolution of Vadakara Society is concerned, Sri.Purushothaman was authorised to participate in the General Body meeting and there is no absolute bar for the member of the Administrative Committee to be a delegatee as he is a member of the society, also. The said fact is also clear from the perusal of the provisions of Sub Rule 12 of Rule 43C. W.A.No.1348 of 2025 22
2025:KER:42814
17. There is no quarrel to the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment cited supra for, the fact remains that they have to be discussed in detail in the matter pending before the learned Single Bench. The apprehension that the matter being sensitive in nature requires an expeditious disposal of the writ petition can be a certain ground for the purpose of consideration of interim order, but we cannot be unmindful of the fact that the request can always be made to the Bench seized off the writ petition, to hear the matter and decide the same.
For the reasons aforementioned, without commenting on the merits of the matter, we do not deem it appropriate to warrant any interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE bng