Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.G.Sadasivan vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 16 November, 2007
The Explanation to S.33(1) states that the
tendering of resignation by a member of the
committee shall have the effect of terminating
his membership from the committee. As to who
he should tender his resignation is laid down in
Rule 38(3) namely that it should be tendered to
the President of the committee. As soon as the
resignation is so tendered it takes effect and
the member ceases to be a member of the
committee. Though sub-rule (4) requires the
President to place the resignation before the
committee for consideration, the committee has
no role to play in the matter of acceptance or
non-acceptance of the resignation, inasmuh as it
takes effect on its being tendered to the
President, and the member ceases to be a
member when it is tendered to the President.
The Meghalaya Co-operative Societies Act
The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912
Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969
Section 109 in Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
S.Nataraj Gownder vs Registrar And Dy.Director Of Dairy on 4 April, 2008
11. Now the question is whether a rule made by the
executive inconsistent with the legislation, which was
declared by this Court in earlier decision in Nataraj
Gownder's case (supra) as void, could be continued or struck
down? The rule making refers to the process that
executive used to create rules or regulations in matter on
the basis of a statute promulgated by a legislature. Court
generally expresses significant differences to the Rules,
W.P.(C)No.16734/09 19
on close judicial scrutiny because the rule making authority
often exceeds the legislative intention. In certain
circumstances, the rule will become ineffective after its
publication because of lack of standard to understand the
actual legislation. This court can intervene if it finds that
there is no reasonableness that the agency have drafted
the rule inconsistent with the Section. A court may send
the rule back to the parent department for further
analysis, generally leaving the department to decide
whether to change the rule to match the existing
Explanation to Section 33 or to amend the rule to show
how it arrived at the original Law. If this Court is not
inclined to remand this rule back to the department it
involves an additional burden to the public. A reading of
Explanation of S.33(1) reveals that a tender of resignation
W.P.(C)No.16734/09 20
by a member of the Committee shall have the immediate
effect of terminating his membership from the Committee.
There is no provision for referring the resignation letter
to the Registrar for obtaining his opinion or sanction about
the validity of the resignation. Therefore, on tendering
the resignation to the President itself, the resignation will
come into effect and there is no reason to interfere in the
opinion held in Et.P4 order.
Dr. B.Ambika Varma vs The Registrar on 1 July, 2011
Formidable
support to this, can be found in the
unreported judgment of this Court in
O.P.No.13060/1998 and connected cases
delivered taking note of the decisions in
Varma v. Joint Registrar (1987 (2) KLT 420)
and Sadasivan v. Joint Registrar (1994 (2)
KLT 238). The requirement that the
W.P.(C)No.16734/09 15
President shall place the resignation before
the committee for consideration does not
clothe the committee with any role in the
matter of acceptance or non-acceptance of
the resignation, in as much as, the resignation
takes effect on it being tendered to the
President and does not depend upon
acceptance by the committee or even the
Presidents.
1