Chandran vs Gopalakrishnan - 1998 Supreme(Ker) 66

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1998 Supreme(Ker) 66

Judges : T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN,A.S.VENKATACHALA MOORTHY
Chandran - Appellant
Versus
Gopalakrishnan - Respondent
Case No : W.A. Nos. 1534& 1711 of 1997
Decided On : 02/13/1998
Advocates Appeared :
N. Ramdas For Appellant P. Santhalingam, Jeena Joseph, K.T. Xavier & Government Pleader (T.P. Sajan) For Respondents

Headnote:
Registrar - Co-operative Societies Act - S.3(1), S.3(2), S.69, S.70 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, particularly S.3(1), S.3(2), S.69, and S.70. It highlighted the power of the Assistant Registrar to appoint an arbitrator and refer disputes, and the limitations on such appointments. The court also emphasized the authority of the Assistant Registrar to decide disputes and transfer them for disposal, as well as the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Tribunal for appeals.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved an election dispute in the Peringode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The appellant contested and lost in the election, alleging serious irregularities and manipulation of records. The Arbitrator found in favor of the appellant, declaring the election invalid. The Joint Registrar appointed an Administrator for the bank to avoid administrative crisis.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Assistant Registrar had the authority to appoint an arbitrator and refer disputes, and the appointment of the Senior Inspector as an arbitrator was valid. It also held that the election dispute could be heard by the Co-operative Arbitration Court and that an appeal would lie to the Co-operative Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Senior Inspector had the jurisdiction to decide the election dispute. The court also considered the effect of the Co-operative Societies Amended Ordinance 8/97 on the dispute resolution process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Assistant Registrar had the power to appoint an arbitrator and refer disputes, and the appointment of the Senior Inspector as an arbitrator was valid. It also clarified the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Arbitration Court and the Co-operative Tribunal for appeals.
Final Decision: The judgment of the learned single judge in O.P. No. 10384 of 1997 was set aside, and both appeals were allowed. Respondents 1 to 7 were given two weeks to file an appeal before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the appeal within six weeks from the date of filing. Status quo was to be maintained until the appeal was disposed of.

Judgment :-

A.S. Venkitachala Moorthy, J.

Both the above appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P. No. 10384 of 1997 dated 4-7-1997. While W.A. No. 1534 of 1997 has been filed by the 7th respondent in the original petition, W.A. No. 1711 of 1997 has been filed by respondents 1 and 2.

2. For the purpose of discussion we adopt the cause title as given in W.A.No.1534 of 1997.

3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.5.1996 in CMP No. 12757 of 1996 in O.P. No. 8227 of 1996 an election was conducted for constituting the managing committee of the Peringode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. on 30.6.1996, In the said election respondents 1 to 7 herein were declared elected and subsequently the said elected members assumed office on 1.7.1996. The appellant herein who also contested and lost in the said election, being aggrieved of the same, filed a petition under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 read with R.67(7) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operation, Palghat and the same was taken on file as A.R.C.No.1045 of 1996. In the said petition the appellant contended that the election was conducted in violation of the Acts, Rules and Regulations and further there had been serious irregularities in the conduct of the election and manipulation of records and prayed that the election held on 30.6.1996 may be set aside. The said petition was resisted by respondents 1 to 7 herein and others on various grounds. The defence is that the said petition has been filed with political motivation and that the appellant herein did not raise any objection whatsoever at any stage and that there were no irregularities or manipulation as alleged.

4. The Arbitrator, namely the 9th respondent herein, who heard and disposed of the said election dispute, framed as many as four issues for consideration on the basis of the pleadings by the respective parties. The said arbitrator after considering the entire matter, came to the conclusion that there were serious irregularities, in the conduct of the election and that the respondents 1 to 7 committed malpractice and fraud in the issuance of identity cards and that there are sufficient reasons to set aside the election. Consequently, the Arbitrator passed an award to the effect that the election held on 30-6-1996 to the Peringode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. was not fair and that the defendants got elected by the manipulation and consequently 'declared the election as invalid. The gist of the award of the Arbitrator is marked as Ext. P9 while the award as such is marked as Ext. P10. On the same day, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Palghat, namely, the 12th respondent herein, passed an order under S.33(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 appointing the Inspector of Cooperative Societies, Mundoor Unit as the part-time Administrator of the Peringode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. F. 1552, in order to avoid administrative crisis in the Bank.

5. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Arbitrator on 9.6.1997, respondents 1 to 7 herein filed O.P. No. 10384 of 1997 under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the 9th respondent-Arbitrator marked as Exts. P9 and P10 dated 9.6.97.

6. In the Original Petition respondents 1 to 7 herein contended that the factual findings of the Arbitrator, viz. with regard to the irregularities in the conduct of the election as well as the manipulation of records, etc. are all erroneous. We may straight away point out at this stage that it is not necessary to go into each and every allegations made in the Original Petition, in view of the nature of the issue involved and the order that we are inclined to pass in these writ appeals. ,

7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, namely the Assistant Registrar of co-operative Societies (General), Palghat in the Writ Petition to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document