13. To contend that, in the absence of Rules
laying down the procedure, the power conferred
under Section 33, for moving a no-confidence motion
against the Managing Committee, remains inoperative
and unworkable, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on the answer on a
reference order by a Full Bench of this Court in
S.Lakshmanan, President, Thiruvilwamala Weavers Co-operative Society
Ltd. v. Vellankeri Member of Board of Directors, Thiruvilwamala Weavers
Co-operative Society Ltd. And Ors. [AIR 2002 Ker. 325]. The issue
involved therein related to a motion of no-
confidence against a president of the Co-operative
W.P.(C) No.5 of 2022 -: 12 :-
Society by the Managing Committee. The question
referred to the Full Bench for its decision was as
follows:-
In paragraph 10 of the
judgment, although this Court has taken note of the fact that
there is no specific enabling provision in the Act for removal of
an elected managing committee on a no-confidence motion, it
was found that in the light of the observation made by the Full
Bench of this Court in S.Lakhmanan, President,
Thiruvilwamala Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. v.
V.Velliankeri, Member of Board of Directors,
Thiruvilwamala Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd, AIR
R.P.No.330 of 2022 in
Writ Appeal No.159 of 2022 -: 10 :-
2002 Kerala 325, the provision in Section 33(1) of the Act needs
to be understood as an enabling provision. As noted, it was also
observed by this court in the said paragraph that in the light of
Article 43B of the Constitution providing for democratic control
of co-operative societies, it is unnecessary to delve deep into
the question whether there exists any enabling provision for
removal of an elected managing committee on a no-confidence
motion. Needless to say, there is no merit in the first
contention.
buttress the contention, that no appeal lies, the petitioners rely on
Lakshmanan v. V.C.I.Co-op. Society [1981 KLT 779]. On the
question of delay, since sub-section (2) of Section 83 provides only
sixty days and no specific power has been conferred on the
appellate authority to condone delay, the appeal filed outside the
period of limitation is argued to be not maintainable.
32. The point considered by the Apex in (2015) 8 SCC 1
(cited supra) was, whether, in the absence of a specific provision
for removal by 'no-confidence' in the Act/Rules or even in the Bye-
laws of a co-operative society, the Chairperson/elected office-
bearer could be removed by a motion of no-confidence (para 1 of
the judgment). The Bench observed that, removal of an elected
member/office-bearer by 'no-confidence motion' was not expressly
provided in the relevant Act/Rules/Bye-laws. But for the stipulation
in the Bye-laws that, in case the office of the Chairperson of the
Federation falling vacant before expiry of its term, for any reason,
the Board has to elect a new person for the remaining term.
Reference was made to a Full Bench decision of this Court reported
in AIR 2002 Ker. 325 [S. Lakshmanan Vs. V. Velliankeri] to
the effect that no such power of removal of the Chairperson by no-
confidence should be read into the provisions of the Act/Rules/Bye-
laws, as Section 33 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act
only envisaged passing of a 'no-confidence motion' by the general
body which results wholesale removal of the committee and not
any individual. Similarly, reference was also made to the verdict
passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Veeramachaneni
W.A Nos.