The importance of adhering to statutory procedures and timelines for amending bye-laws and conducting elections under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

1. On the request of the third respondent Bank, the Election Commission, on 01.10.2015 issued Ext. P1 notification [Ext. R3(1)] proposing to hold elections on 06.12.2015 to the managing committee of the respondent Bank. In the notification, 02.11.2015 was fixed to be the date for publishing the draft voters list and venue; 09.11.2015, for submitting objections; 11.11.2015, for examining the objections; 12.11.2015, for publishing the final voters list; 19.11.2015, for submitting nominations; 20.11.2015, for examining nominations; and 21.11.2015, for withdrawing the nominations, if any candidate desires. On 19.11.2015, the petitioners along with other members submitted Ext. P2 objections to the Electoral Officer, the 4th respondent. Later on 24.11.2015, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

2. The singular grievance of the petitioners seems to be that since the bye-laws of the third respondent Bank suffered an amendment, which was approved by the Joint Registrar only on 27.07.2015, the process of publishing the amendment and calling for the deficient share money was not done in accordance the amended bye-law. As a result, the process initiated for conducting the election is vitiated.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in that context, has drawn my attention to Ext. R3(g) to contend that the third respondent Bank amended clause 17(1) of the bye-laws dividing the membership into three categories: those who hold 'A' class shares worth Rs. 100/- each; those who hold 'B' class shares worth Rs.500/- each; those who hold 'C' class shares worth Rs.10/- each. Insofar as 'A' class shares are concerned, prior to the amendment, the share values was Rs. 10/-. Since it was raised to Rs. 100/-, the existing members were required to make good the deficit within a particular period of time.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to the second limb of the amendment-- clause 25(A) of the bye-laws. According to him, clause 25(A), incorporated for the first time and registered by the Joint Registrar on 27.07.2015, stipulated a strict time frame for notifying the amendment, providing sufficient time for members to pay the deficit share value, and for all other consequential measures. The learned counsel has laid frontal thrust on the fact that since the third respondent Bank has not followed the time schedule fixed in the amended clause 25(A), Ext. P1 election notification cannot be sustained.

5. The learned counsel has also submitted that out of 14,000 members of the Bank, only about 4000 members-about 1/3rd -alone could pay the deficit share value. In sum and substance, the learned counsel has contended that it is entirely not in the interest of the respondent Bank to exclude large number of members and proceed with the elections.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the third respondent has submitted that clause 17(1), in fact, was amended through Ext. R3(b) by the Bank in 2014 itself. According to him, the Joint Registrar registered the amended bye-law on 24.09.2014. In further elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that after the registration of amended clause 17(1), the respondent Bank gave wide publicity to the amendment in the regional newspapers by specifying a particular date, i.e., 31.03.2015, for the members to pay the deficit share value. He has also further submitted that through Ext. R3(h)(i) and (j), the time was further extended up to 15.09.2015.

7. The learned counsel has stressed the fact that now the entire process concerning the election was over, save the voting, which is to take place on 06.12.2015, day after tomorrow. In support of his submissions the learned counsel has placed reliance on Jose v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 1992 (2) KLT 673 and Rajan v. Electoral Officer, 2009 (3) KLT 1046.

8. The learned Special Government Pleader, first, contended that no irregularities could be discerned from the procedure