IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
Joshy Pereppadan - Petitioner
Versus
Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies (General) & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 20935 of 2022
Decided On : 13-06-2023
Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rule 43-A, (ii) - No confidence motion - Motion of no confidence without giving notice - Petition filed by President of management committee of 4th respondent Co-operative Society challenging Ext.P4 notice of 3rd respondent to consider a motion of no confidence against him - A notice of intention to move no confidence motion against petitioner has already been submitted before 1st respondent as evident from Ext. P1 and other proceedings - Para 8.
Finding of the Court :
Petitioner has not stated in what manner he was prejudiced by late service of notice - Right to remove President or Vice-President or Treasurer or any other officer of Committee of a Society from his office by a no-confidence motion stems out of Statute - It is also part of democratic process - A notice of intention to move no confidence motion against petitioner has already been submitted before 1st respondent as evident from Ext. P1 and other proceedings - There is no requirement of a fresh notice of intention to move motion - Officer authorised shall convene a meeting of Committee for consideration of said motion in terms of statutory requirements under Rule 43-A(ii) of Rules - Meeting shall be convened within thirty days from date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Result : Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition is filed by the President of the management committee of the 4th respondent Co-operative Society challenging Ext.P4 notice of the 3rd respondent, the authorized officer of the Registrar, convening a meeting of the Committee, to consider a motion of no confidence against him. It is contended that, pursuant to a notice of intention to move a motion of no confidence against the petitioner delivered by certain members of the Committee before the Joint Registrar, the 1st respondent, the Unit Inspector, the authorized officer of the Registrar, issued Ext. P2 notice dated 03.06.2022 convening a meeting of the Committee on 21.06.2022. When the petitioner, vide Ext. P3, complained that the requirement of giving 'fifteen clear days notice' between the date of receipt of notice and the date of meeting as contemplated under Rule 43-A(ii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for brevity) was not fulfilled, the authorized officer issued Ext. P4 fresh notice dated 10.06.2022 adjourning the meeting to 29.06.2022. Contending that he got the notice of the adjourned meeting only on 15.06.2022 and there is no fifteen clear days notice between the date of receipt of notice and the date of meeting, the petitioner submitted Ext. P6 complaint before the authorized officer requesting to defer the consideration of no confidence motion. Since the authorized officer did not accede to the request of the petitioner, this writ petition is preferred to set aside Ext. P4 notice and for direction to the authorized officer to issue fresh notice in accordance with the mandate of Rule 43-A of the Rules. The petitioner has produced Ext. P5 acknowledgment card issued by the Postal Department to show that he received Ext. P4 notice only on 15.06.2022. The petitioner contends that Ext.P4, convening meeting to consider the motion of no confidence without giving 15 clear days of notice as contemplated under Rule 43-A of the Rules, is illegal and liable to be interfered with.
2. At the time of admission of the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order keeping in abeyance the proceedings proposed by Ext. P4 notice.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies, the 2nd respondent, contending, inter alia, that Ext. P4 notice dated 10.06.2022 was sent on the very same day and as per the India Post Track Consignment, the petitioner has received the notice on 13.06.2022 and the requirement of 15 clear days notice has been complied with.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. Rule 43-A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows :
(i) A notice of intention to move a no-confidence motion signed by such number of members as shall constitute not less than one third of the total strength of the committee, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be moved shall be delivered to the Registrar, in person, by any two members signing the notice.
(ii) Any officer duly authorised by the Registrar concerned in this behalf, shall arrange for the consideration of the motion in a meeting of the committee to be held at the office of the society on a date appointed by him, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the copy of the motion referred to in clause (i) was delivered to the Registrar. The said officer shall give to the members, not less than fifteen clear days of notice of such meeting and of the time appointed therefor.
(iii) The officer authorised under clause (ii) shall preside over the meeting convened under this rule.
(iv) A meeting convened for the purpose of considering
Jai Charan Lal Anal v. State of U.P. and others
V.A. Jose and another v. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) and others
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Rule 43-A of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 reads as removal of President, Vice-President etc. by no-confidence motion.
Rule 14 – AKK of Rules, 1960 reads as no Confidence Motion.
Procedural lapses in convening meetings under cooperative rules do not invalidate no confidence motions; such rules viewed as directory, ensuring democratic processes are upheld.
If the motion for no confidence fails for want of quorum or lack of requisite majority at meeting, no subsequent meeting for considering motion of no confidence shall be held within six months of dat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the mandatory provisions of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and the Rules framed thereunder, particularly regar....
Procedural requirements for considering a motion of no confidence are mandatory and must be strictly followed, as interpreted from Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1994.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.