The expulsion of the petitioners from the primary membership of the society was illegal and impermissible. The court found that the allegations against the petitioners did not warrant expulsion and that the society had invoked a power not available under the given fact situation.

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Facts:

The petitioners, being the members of the fifth respondent Bank, were elected on 05.09.2012 as the Directors of the Board; in other words, as the members of the managing committee. The fifth respondent Bank, with a membership of 4500, has eleven members in the managing committee, including the petitioners, the first and second petitioners being the lady members.

2. In the course of time, five out of eleven members of the managing committee submitted Exhibit P1 complaint before the third respondent. They ventilated the grievance that the Secretary of the fifth respondent Bank had been functioning autocratically, by denying them access to the records, apart from compelling them to sign the minutes book and other registers in blank. At a later point of time, having come to know that the Secretary had been secretly negotiating to purchase certain immovable property for the Bank at an exorbitant rate, the petitioners sought details from the Secretary of the proposed transaction. When no information was forthcoming, the petitioners, once again, submitted another representation, Exhibit P2, to the third respondent.

3. Acting on the complaint of the petitioners, the third respondent is said to have conducted an enquiry, which resulted in Exhibit P3. It is an order of settlement among the members of the managing committee on the initiative of the third respondent. Later, however, on the complaint of the petitioners 1 and 2, the police registered a crime in F.I.R.No.708/2015 on the file of the Peechi Police Station against the Secretary and the President of the Society for the alleged offences under Sections 509, 294(B), 506(1) and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. As a spin-off to the police complaint and the internal wrangling among the members of the managing committee, both the Secretary and the President of the respondent Bank, according to the petitioners, orchestrated majority and passed Exhibit P5 resolution proposing to expel the petitioners from the primary membership of the Bank. Aggrieved, the petitioners, challenging Exhibit P5, filed Exhibit P6 series of appeals before the second respondent by invoking Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('the Rules' for brevity).

5. Pending adjudication of Exhibit P6 series of appeals, the fourth respondent issued Exhibit P8 notice to the petitioners asking them to show cause why they should not be expelled from the primary membership of the Bank for their alleged adverse actions against the interest of the Bank. In response, with a view to giving a comprehensive reply, the petitioners sought certain documents from the President. Later, after getting them, said to be voluminous, they presented Exhibit P9 representation before the President for extension of time to submit their explanation. Through Exhibit P10 the President of the Bank, however, rejected the petitioners' request to extend the time. Consequently, the Bank published Exhibit P11 notice to convene an extra-ordinary general body meeting on 28.06.2015.

6. Under these circumstances, the petitioners filed the present writ petition assailing Exhibit P5 resolution and Exhibit P8 show cause notice. This Court, on 26.06.2015, issued an interim order that the third respondent or any other senior officer deputed by him shall attend the special general body meeting to be convened on 28.06.2015 to decide the expulsion of the petitioners from the primary membership. This Court has further observed that the resolution, if any, to be passed expelling the petitioners from the primary membership shall not be implemented for one month.

7. Later, the members of the fifth respondent Bank in the special general body meeting held on 28.06.2015, approved with a massive majority the decision of the managing committee to expel the petitioners from the primary membership of the Bank. The said decision was communicated to the petitioners through Exhibit P12. Thus, incorporating the subsequent developments, the pe