Point of Law: Mere fact that the motion for no-confidence was passed pending the writ petition would not stand in the way of this Court considering the challenge against the validity of the convening of the Special General Body on the grounds as urged in the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

(a) Is there any provision under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as “KCS Act”) enabling a no-confidence motion be moved against the Managing Committee of a Society?

(b) Is that part of Section 33 of the KCS Act providing for moving of a no-confidence motion against the Managing Committee, a dead letter, applying the doctrine of desuetude?

(c) In the absence of any Rules prescribing the procedure for moving a motion of no-confidence against a Managing Committee in terms of Section 33 of the KCS Act, is not the statutory provision unenforceable/sterile?

(d) Does the Registrar have the power to summon a Special General Body under Section 30(3) of the KCS Act for considering a motion of no-confidence against a Managing Committee?

(e) Can the Registrar summon a General Body under Section 33 of the KCS Act without requisition from the prescribed number of members in terms of Section 30(1)?

(f) Can the delegatee of the Registrar further delegate the power under Section 30(3) of the KCS Act to summon a Special General Body Meeting?

“No” is the answer to all the questions and hence the motion of no-confidence sought to be moved against the Managing Committee of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. No.T-4017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”) is bad in law, is the argument of Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. The arguments are unfounded, urges Sri.P.Ravindran, the learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Raghuraj N., Sri.M.Sasindran and Sri.Asif M.A, the learned counsel for the party respondents and Sri.P.P.Thajudheen the learned Special Government Pleader.

2. The Society is an Apex Society. Its General Body consists of 76 members, being representatives/ delegates from primary societies. The petitioners are two such delegates. They were elected as members of the Board of Directors of the Society.

3. On 30.10.2021, a non-confidence motion was moved by two members of the Society against its Managing Committee. Notice requiring convening of a General Body to consider the no-confidence motion was given to the Registrar by 31 members. On 13.12.2021, the Registrar passed an order (Ext.P8) in terms of Section 30(3) of the KCS Act, nominating the Additional Registrar (consumer) to call for a Special General Body, to consider the no-confidence motion.

4. Pursuant to the above, the additional Registrar decided to convene a special general body of the Society at the head office of the Society, to be held on 06.01.2022 at 11.00 am. As per Ext.R2(b) communication dated 14.12.2021, the Managing Director of the Society was instructed to send notice regarding the meeting to all the members. It is at that stage that, on 03.01.2022, the writ petition has been filed challenging the consideration of the no-confidence motion on the grounds first above noted.

5. Before I proceed to deliberate upon the questions posed, it would be appropriate to refer to the factual background leading up to the present proceedings.

6. The Annual General Body meeting of the Society was scheduled to be held on 30.09.2021. Just three days prior to it, a no-confidence motion against the Managing Committee was sought to be included in the agenda as an additional item. On challenge before this Court by the first petitioner herein and another member, in WP© 20383/2021, an interim direction was passed by this Court, to defer consideration of the no-confidence motion. It appears that in the General Body meeting held on 30.09.2021 there was chaos. The budget was not passed. The president resigned. Observing that there is administrative stalemate in the Society, an administrator was appointed. On challenge by the first petitioner herein and another, in WPC 21049/2021, this Court passed an interim order, directing the administration of the Society to be handed over back to the Committee. The president, who claimed to have resigned, re-assumed office.

7. Thereafter, 16 members of the Managi