Strict compliance with statutory provisions for amending bye-laws, the sacrosanct nature of the general body's role in approving amendments, and the limitations on the Registrar's power to require amendments.

1. The Cannanore Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd. popularly known as A. K. G. Hospital, (hereinafter referred to as the 'society'), appears to be a prestigious institution in Cannanore. It is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, (the Act for brevity). The bye-laws of the society, as they stood registered under S.7 of the Act, authorised a share capital of Rs.Forty lakhs, consisting of five thousand A class members of Rs. 100/- each, fifty B class members of Rs.1,000/- each, two thousand five hundred C class members of Rs.1,000/- each, open to the State and Central Governments, and nine hundred and fifty D class members of Rs.1,000/- each, open to local bodies, co-operative and Charitable Societies. The petitioner is a member of the Society.

2. One M. V. Raghavan, who was a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (but who, it is said, now stands expelled from it), was the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the society. An election was held to the managing committee for the period 1987-92, when the committee headed by M. V. Raghavan was ousted from office, alleged to be due to large scale rigging of the elections. Raghavan has filed a petition before the first respondent Joint Registrar, challenging the election under S.69 of the Act, as A.R.C. No.13/86-87. That petition is pending. It is the petitioner's case that the Raghavan group was ousted from office consequent on Raghavan's expulsion from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) due to political differences, and the subsequent formation by him of a new party, called the Communist Marxist Party.

3. After the new managing committee assumed office, the petitioner noted large scale, indiscriminate enrolment of members to the society. As a matter of fact, the entire authorised share capital of the society, of Rs. Forty lakhs, had been fully paid up, and there was no scope for any further enrolment of members. Petitioner complained to the first respondent, Joint Registrar, about this violation of the bye-laws, and the unauthorised enrolment of new members, by the petition Ext.P2 dated August 7,1987. The latter replied by Ext.P3 dated August 20,1987 stating that he had given permissive sanction to the society to amend its bye-laws, enhancing the authorised share capital from rupees forty lakhs to rupees one crore by his proceedings dated July 27,1987. The first respondent therefore regretted his inability to do anything on the petitioner's prayer to restrain the enrolment of new members to the society.

4. Petitioner thereupon obtained a copy of the first respondent's proceeding dated July 27,1987 referred to in Ext. P3. A copy of that proceeding is Ext.P4 and it runs thus:

"Permissive sanction is hereby granted amending the Bye law No.S(a), 8(b) as noted below subject to the condition that the bye law shall be amended as per R.9 of the Rules framed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 21 of 1969 within six months from the date of this order:

Bye law 5(a): The authorised share capital of the society shall be Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One crore) made up. as follows:

i) 3000 A class share of Rs.100/- each open to individuals.

ii) 100 B class share of Rs.1000/- each open to medical practitioners.

iii) 3,000 C class share of Rs.1,000/- each open to State and Central Governments.

iv) 3,900 D class share of Rs.1000/- each open, to Co-operative Societies and Local Bodies and Charitable Societies registered under Societies Registration Act.

Bye law No.8(b): No member shall hold shares in excess of the value of Rs.20,000/- except the State Government/ Central Government, Co-operative Societies, Local Bodies and Charitable Societies. Operation of this permissive sanction will cease to exist if the Society does not bring about the requisite amendment as envisaged under Rule (sic) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, within six months from the date of this Order".

5. Petitioner has filed this original petition challenging Ext.