Important points:
If the impugned resolution is not ex facie or blatantly in violation of the KCS Act, Rules and Bye-laws but is seen to be adopted pursuant to a preceding process, the validity of which is, in fact, assailed, then the Joint Registrar may not be in a position to invoke Rule 176 of the KCS Rules to rescind the same but will have to use his powers under Section 66 of the KCS Act, either to cause a supervision or inspection into the affairs of the society and if, thereafter, the processes that led to the resolution is found illegal or unlawful, competent necessary orders will have to be directed to be issued by the society rectifying it. This is also because, Rule 176 of the KCS Rules does not postulate a detailed enquiry or investigative process, other than to verify if the resolution is per se vitiated for the enumerated reasons therein, while the mandate of Sections 65, 66 and 69 of the Act would authorise such a mechanism at the hands of the competent authorities under it.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. One of the most potent and effective weapons in the statutory armamentarium of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to check arbitrary actions of a co-operative Society, is the power to rescind their resolution/s under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (the KCS Rules for brevity).

2. Every Co-operative Society is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal as provided under Section 9 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (the KCS Act for brevity) and they can, therefore, act only as per resolutions adopted by them. The power of a Registrar to rescind such resolutions, albeit, in certain enumerated circumstances, is thus the most effect check on capricious and illegal exercise of discretion by the Societies.

3. The above being indisputably so, a learned Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Sivaprabha vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, W.A. No. 2119/2016, has held as under:

“The law is well settled that the power to rescind a resolution under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 cannot be invoked to annul an employment in a co-operative bank. Resort should be had to Section 69(2d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 by raising a dispute before the C-operative Arbitration Court if there is any illegality in the employment.”

4. Therefore, when this Court is called upon in these cases to consider the validity of the impugned orders issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies rescinding the resolutions adopted by various Societies under which appointments were made to their services, I am also fully cognizant that in Akalakunnam Village Service Co-operative Bank Limited and Another vs. Binu N. and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 294, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has spoken quite to the contrary, holding that even in matters relating to resolutions under which illegal appointments have been made, it is not necessary to insist on a person to approach the Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the KCS Act.

5. There can hardly be any doubt that I am bound implicitly by the views and conclusions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, notwithstanding the observations of the learned Division Bench of this Court as afore, if the declarations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to the effect that Rule 176 of the KCS Rules can be invoked in these matters, then I am enjoined to follow the same.

6. In such scenario, when I proceed to consider the merits of these writ petitions, I am first obligated to consider whether the conclusions arrived at by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Akalakunnam (supra) would authorise the exercise of jurisdiction by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules even with respect to the resolutions of Societies adopted by them for appointments and employment in their services.

7. The constitutive facts noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Akalakunnam (supra) are that certain aspirants for appointment to the various posts notified by the Society challenged the notification issued by it for making selection to these posts on the ground that it did not confirm to the KCS Act and the circulars issued under Rule 182(5) of the KCS Rules. An allegation was made therein that certain other persons were already identified by the Society and that the whole process was only a facade intended to appoint them. A learned single Judge of this Court set aside the notification of the selection process, which judgment was appealed before a Division Bench of this Court, wherein a challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition was also raised, contending that the proper remedy which ought to have been invoked by the petitioners therein was only under Section 69 of the KCS Act. The Hon'ble supreme Court, after considering the facts of the case and the contentions of the Society therein, however, repelled them through the observations and declarations in paragraph 10 of the judgment, as under:

“Consider