The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory procedure for tendering resignation as prescribed in R.38(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The court emphasized that the resignation, if not tendered to the President of the committee, does not take effect.

The five petitioners are the President and four members of the third respondent Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The managing committee of the society consists of nine members, which assumed office on 24-6-1991 for a period of three years. The term of the committee thus expires on 23-6-1994. This writ petition has been occasioned by the order Ext. P9 passed by the first respondent Joint Registrar on 22-2-1994 superseding the managing committee under S.33 of the Act. The facts are a bit tangled and it is necessary to state the same in chronological order for a proper understanding of the dispute between the parties. I am stating the facts as borne out by the writ petition, the counter affidavit of the first respondent as also the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent one Joy Varghese, who was also a member of the managing committee of the society and who got himself impleaded as a party to this writ petition.

2. The managing committee had nine members in it at its inception. One member by name C.V. Kuriakose was disqualified in the year 1993 and three others admittedly resigned on 17-11-1993. The controversy between the parties is in relation to the alleged resignation of the second petitioner one P.M. Vasudevan Nair, the petitioners alleging that he had not resigned, while respondents 1,2 and 4 contend that he has resigned on 17-11-1993. The reason for this controversy is that if he has really resigned, the number of members in the managing committee gets reduced to four on 17-11-1993 and there being no sufficient quorum for the meeting of the committee, the managing committee cannot function and therefore it became liable to be superseded under S.33. If on the other hand, the second petitioner had not resigned as contended by the petitioners, then the managing committee has sufficient quorum and is not liable to be superseded under S.33 as was done by Ext. P9.

3. Alleging that the second petitioner had resigned from the managing committee of the society, a printed notice appears to have been circulated in the locality about his resignation. The second petitioner thereupon issued a bit notice Ext. P1 on 20-11-1993 stating that he had not resigned from the managing committee and that the notice to the contrary had been issued without his knowledge or consent. At the same time he also wrote the letter Ext. P2 on 19-11-1993 to the first petitioner President of the managing committee affirming that he had not resigned from the managing committee. The first petitioner thereupon issued another bit notice on 24-11-1993 alleging that the second petitioner had not resigned from the managing committee and that there was no obstacle in the way of the managing committee functioning as such.

4. The managing committee met on 23-11-1993 when it discussed the question of resignation of the other three members and recorded it. It also discussed the alleged resignation of the second petitioner, when the second petitioner affirmed that the news about his resignation was not true and that he had not resigned. The managing committee authorised the President to take necessary action to counter act the propaganda set afoot. The managing committee again met on 27-11-1993 and on 10-1-1994 to transact its business at both of which the second petitioner attended. All this is evident from the Photostat copy of the minutes of the managing committee produced as Ext. P4.

5. A copy of the alleged resignation letter of the second petitioner has been produced by Joy Varghese who was one of the members who resigned on 17-11-1993 marked as Ext. P4(a). On 18-11-1993 the second petitioner denied his resignation in a letter which he sent to the Diary Extension Officer, Idukki. It is so stated in the counter affidavit of the first respondent. On 29-11-1993 the Assistant Director (Dairy), Thodupuzha issued a registered letter to the second petitioner calling upon him to appear before the said office