A member's recourse to a civil court against a co-operative society cannot be automatically deemed prejudicial to the society's interest, especially if the action is ill-advised or lodged in the wrong forum.

1. Can a member of a co-operative society having recourse to civil action against the society be regarded as acting prejudicially to its interest, is the question raised in this petition.

2. The Government in exercise of its power of revision under S.87 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, passed Ext. P5 order dated 19 7-1976 setting aside Ext-P4 order dated 3 31976 of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (the 2nd respondent herein). Ext. P5 is challenged in this Original Petition.

3. The 5th respondent filed a petition before the 2nd respondent praying that the petitioner in this Original Petition should be disqualified to he a member of the committee of management of the 4th respondent-Co-operative Society on the ground that he bad acted contrary to the interest of the society by filing civil suits against it for certain alleged irregularities. This application was dismissed by the 2nd respondent by Ext. P4, which in my view, is a well considered order. The 2nd respondent held that every person had a right to approach a court of law and the fact that the present petitioner filed suits against the society was no reason to disqualify him to be a member of the committee of management. The contention that the petitioner was disqualified under R.44 (2) (c) and 44 (1) 0) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, read with Bylaw 37 of the Society was rejected.

4. Ext. P4 order of the 2nd respondent was challenged in revision before the Government, and Ext. P5 order was passed by the Government holding that the petitioner, having had recourse to a civil court to restrain the General Body of the Society from holding its meetings for the reason that it was wrongly constituted, has acted, prejudicially to the interest of the society and has thereby become disqualified to be a member of its committee of management. For this reason the order of the 2nd respondent was set aside.

5. The reason given by the Government is, in my view, totally incorrect and unacceptable. It is opposed to all canons of jurisprudence. Every person is entitled to vindicate his right by approaching a civil court, but if his action is based on unsustainable grounds or is lodged in the wrong forum, it is liable to be dismissed and he is likely to be saddled with costs. An ill-advised civil action against a society by a member cannot he" regarded as sufficient reason to disqualify him. If the petitioner initiated action in a civil court in respect of a matter falling under S.69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, his suit is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, but, for that reason, his conduct cannot be characterised as prejudicial to the interest of the society so as to attract disqualification.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 and 2 has fairly, and in my view, rightly conceded that Ext. P5 is unsustainable. Ext. P5 is accordingly quashed.

7. The Original Petition is allowed. The parties will bear their respective costs. Allowed.