Introduction:

A rash of writ petitions has been filed: some by existing societies and some by yet-to-be-born societies. Some of the existing societies seek expansion; the other complain of competition as a result of that proposed expansion. Yet-to-be-born societies assert that their right to be established is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. They complain about what is termed unconstitutional restriction in Section 7(1)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act coming in their way of getting registered as new societies.

2. Though the petitioners are different, the respondents are, more or less, the same. Further, through all the issues disparate as they seem runs a common theme: the vires of Section 7(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, I propose to consider and dispose of all the writ petitions through a common judgment. The facts and legal submissions from each writ petition are referred to the extent relevant.

W.P. (C) No. 12728/2013:

3. The petitioner, an Urban Co-operative Society, was established on 01.01.1988 with eight revenue villages in Wayanad District as its area of operation. Later, it has further extended its operations into a few more villages of the same district. The petitioner is a Class IV society.

4. On the other hand, the third respondent is an Urban Co- operative Bank with its area of operation limited to Bathery Taluk. Beginning from 2003, the third respondent Bank has intermittently tried to extend its area of operation but, at every turn, it faced opposition--and successfully, at that from the petitioner. Eventually, in 2012 the third respondent succeeded in its efforts to have its area of operation extended despite the petitioner's objection. The objection all along has been that the third respondent's expansion is nothing but an encroachment on the petitioner's area of operation and that it starkly violates Section 7(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act'). The first respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, issued Exhibit P9 order rejecting the petitioner's objections and consequently permitting the third respondent to extend its area of operation.

5. Impugning Exhibit P9 order, the petitioner Bank has filed the present writ petitions.

6. Sri P. C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that Section 7(c) of the Act is eloquent that no society shall have its area of operation extended encroaching upon the area of operation of any other society, more particularly a similar society. According to him, the petitioner and the third respondent are similar societies. Emphasizing Section 12 of the Act, the learned counsel has also contended that no amendment of the bye-laws can be permitted if it violates the statutory mandate in this case, Section 7(c) of the Act.

7. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that in terms of Section 8 of the Act, no co-operative society shall be registered if it is likely to be economically unsound or its registration may have an adverse effect on the co-operative movement.

8. Referring to section 80 of the Act and Rule 15 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('the Rules'), in relation to the impugned Exhibit P9 order, the learned counsel contends that it is entirely fallacious on the first respondent's part to hold that the petitioner and the third respondent are two different societies when they are, he argues, one and the same type. Expatiating on his submissions, the learned counsel has emphasised that among the three types of societies, both Urban Co-operative Bank and Primary Agricultural Credit Society fall under the same category.

9. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that Exhibit P9 order cannot be sustained and accordingly deserves to be set aside.

W.P. (C) No.926 of 2016:

10. Apart from filing its counter af