Balakrishnan Nair, J.

In all these cases, the constitutional validity of Ordinance No.62/2007, promulgated by the Governor of Kerala, is mainly challenged by the petitioners. Therefore, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

W.P.(C) No. 37452/2007:

2. This writ petition is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the exhibits.

3. The brief facts of the case are the following: The writ petitioner is the President of the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is a Central Society as defined under Section 2(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred as the “KCS Act”). The District Co-operative Banks, including the petitioner’s Bank are hereinafter mentioned for convenience as DCB. The petitioner is the delegate of Valavoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., to the general body of the DCB. The election to the Managing Committee of the DCB. The election to the Managing Committee assumed office on 5.2003. The members of the Board of Directors of the DCB were elected for a period of five years. While so, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 112.2007, appointed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kottayam as the Part-time Administrator of the DCB, under Section 33(1) of the KCS Act. The said order was passed based on the finding that in view of Ordinance NO.62/2007, some of the members of the Board of Directors ceased to be its members and the remaining members cannot constitute the quorum for the Board. The Ordinance relied on by the Registrar in Ext.P1 is Ext.P2 dated 112.2007. According to the petitioner, the provisions of Ext.P2 amendment are ultra vires and unconstitutional and therefore, unenforceable. As a result of the Ordinance, majority of the members of the DCB other than Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and Urban Co-operative Banks became nominal or associate members of the DCB, having no right to vote or participate in the administration of the Bank. The exclusion of societies belonging to categories other than the two categories mentioned above, is arbitrary and discriminatory. So, the Ordinance is hit by violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court in Alapuzha Dt. Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala [2003(1) KLT 297] in support of his submissions. As per the said decision, the provisions similar to those contained in Ext.P2 Ordinance in an earlier amending Act were held to be arbitrary and unconstitutional and also for quashing Ext.P1.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit, supporting the impugned legislation. According to them, the DCB is mainly engaged in banking business. The Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and Urban Co-operative Banks, which are also mainly engaged in agricultural credit and banking business. The Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and Urban Co-operative Banks, which are also mainly engaged in agricultural credit and banking business should, alone, be permitted to have a say in the management of the DCB. A DCB should be a central society for the co-operative societies, mainly engaged in agricultural credit and banking business. Other categories of societies

have their own respective apex bodies. The milk Societies have Regional Milk Producers Union as their central society as also Milma as the apex society at the State level. For Consumer Co-operative Societies, there is a central society called District Whole-sale Consumer Store and the apex body is Consumerfed. There are other apex societies like Housing Federation, Serifed, Matsyafed, etc. The Government appointed a Committee called E.V. Kumaran Committee, which, after making extensive studies, recommended that the DCB should be the central society for Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and Urban Co-operative Banks. In other categories of central and apex societies, the societies belonging to different categories are not