SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Ker) 701

High Court Of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
T.K.Porinchu - Appellant
Versus
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies - Respondents
WP(C).No. 24774 of 2008(Y)
Decided On : 28 August 2009

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:George Poonthottam, Advocate. For the Respondent:P.C. Sasidharan, Advocate.

Headnote:

Kerala Co operative Societies Rules 1969 - Rules 16( 3) and 16( 4) - Whether Even if membership granted to a member is illegal, whether he continues to be a member till he is removed following procedure laid down in R.16(3) & (4) ? Whether the ineligibility suffered by a member should be a continuing ineligibility ? Whether such continuance is a condition precedent for initiating proceedings under R.16(4) ? Held, Once a person is granted membership in a Society, even if it is illegal for some reason, unless he is removed following the procedure laid down in R.16(3) or (4) of the Rules, the membership will continue. Therefore, legally and factually, petitioner continued as a member of the Society and had contested the elections held and thus was enjoying all rights and privileges as a member of the Society - R.16(3) deals with the ineligibility of a person for membership, at the time when he was admitted and also cases where a member subsequently becomes ineligible for membership. Therefore, R.16(3) deals with the existing ineligibility of a member at the time of his admission into a society and the ineligibility suffered subsequent to the admission also. When we come to R.16(4), it can be seen that the Registrar's power under R.16(4) is confined to cases where a 'member of a Society becomes ineligible to continue as such.' In such a case, the Registrar may, by order in writing, declare that such member has ceased to be a member of the Society, from the date of the order - Otherwise, the Rule will have the effect of enabling the Registrar, to pick up instances which have occurred long in the past, and initiate action, whenever it suits him. Such power will be arbitrary and the Rule making authority did not intend to confer any such power - The ineligibility provided under R.16(4), did not continue beyond his removal from membership and if so the petitioner was not ineligible to continue as such, when proceedings were initiated show cause notice - Registrar could not have initiated action under R.16(4) of the Rules and declared that the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Society with effect from the date of his order, For that reason, order is illegal and has to be set aside - Writ Petition is allowed

Judgment :

The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the Ist respondent and to declare that the Ist respondent has no authority to cancel the membership granted to the petitioner, in the Thirssur District Co- operative Hospital Ltd., a Cooperative Society (Society for short) registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ( `the Act' for short).

2. Facts of the case are that, pursuant to Ext.P5(2) application made by the petitioner on 22.4.1993, the Administrator, who was then in office, admitted the petitioner as a member of the Society with membership No.6509, granted on 27.4.1993. Subsequently, election was notified to be held in 1996 and the Returning Officer removed petitioner's name from the voters list. This was challenged before this court in O.P.No.19104/96 and on the strength of the interim order obtained, petitioner contested and won the election. Finally, the Original petition was disposed of relegating the petitioner to raise dispute before the statutory authorities.

3. Accordingly, ARC.Nos.120/1997 and 121/1997 were raised by the petitioner and others who were removed from the voters list and finally award was rendered by the Arbitrator upholding the action of the Returning Officer. Appeals were filed before the Tribunal and on the strength of the interim order obtained, the committee continued in office. Petitioner submits that while so, in the judgment in Hassan V. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1998(2) KLT 746 rendered on 28.8.1998, a Full Bench of this court held that an Administrator did not have power to admit members in a society. It is stated that with the declaration of law as above membership No.6509 granted to the petitioner on 20.4.1993 had become non-est in the eye of law.

4. In the above background, on 17.11.1998, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5(3) application for membership, which was received by the Society on 20.11.1998. It is stated that pursuant to the application, the committee by its resolution dated 21.11.1998, granted the petitioner membership No.12078. Subsequent to this, according to the petitioner, Administrator was again appointed and in 1999 the appeals which were pending in the Tribunal against the award of the Arbitrator were dismissed as not pressed.

5. According to the petitioner, he had only membership No.12078 and he contested the elections held in the meanwhile and was also the President of the Society for different terms. In 2008, again the Administrative Committee was appointed on 19.3.2008 and thereafter, referring to report dated 17.5.2008 of the Assistant Registrar, Ext.P2 show cause notice was issued by the Ist respondent on 21.5.2008 alleging that on the strength of the membership No.6509 granted on 27.4.1993 petitioner had contested the elections to the Board of Directors of the Society in 1993 and 1996 and that suppressing the aforesaid membership and against the provisions of the bye laws, applied for a new membership on 20.11.1998 and obtained membership No.12078 dated 21.11.1998 and contested in the election in 2004 and 2006. It is stated that the said act of the petitioner was against the bye laws of the Society and that under Rule 16(4) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (`the Rules' for short), he was liable to be removed from the membership of the Society. On the above allegations petitioner was called upon to show cause against the said proposal.

6. On receipt of Ext.P2, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 requesting the Ist respondent to furnish details mentioned therein to submit his reply to Ext.P2. It is stated that details were not given and therefore WP(c).No.15890/08 was filed, resulting in Ext.P4 judgment directing the respondent to consider Ext.P3 request of the petitioner and to issue the necessary materials sought for. In pursuance to the said judgment Ext.P5 letter was issued enclosing Exts.P5(2), P5(3), the applications dated 22.4.1993 and 20.11.1998 made by the petitioner and the report dated 17.5.2008 bas















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top