JUDGMENT

The challenge in these writ petitions is against the motion of no confidence against the President of the Kozhikode District Co-operative Rubber Marketing Society Ltd. W.P(C) No.3842 of 2022 was filed challenging the convening of the meeting for consideration of the motion, whereas W.P(C) No.5667 of 2022 is filed challenging the result of the motion. The grounds of challenge are similar.

2. Heard Sri. P.P Jacob learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Abraham Markose learned counsel for 6th respondent, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan learned counsel for 7th respondent and Sri.Bimal K Nath and Smt.Resmi.K.M., the learned senior Government Pleaders.

3. Following grounds of challenge are urged:

(1) The ex-officio members have not been ‘appointed’ without which they cannot be members of the committee.

(2) The ex-officio members do not have the right to participate in the meeting of no confidence.

(3) The ex-officio members do not have the right to vote.

(4) The ex-officio members have incurred disqualification to be members consequent on their absence from four consecutive meetings of the committee, in terms of clause 6.02 of the bye-laws of the society.

4. To challenge the resolution of no-confidence, the petitioners have a remedy before the Registrar under Rule 176 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. In the light of the same, I do not propose to go into the merits of the contentions but for prima facie satisfying, if the motion has been passed with majority.

5. As per the bye laws of the society, the total strength of the managing committee is fifteen. It consists of ten members elected from the 'A' class members, and one from 'C' class members; four are ex-

officio members.

6. To consider the no confidence motion mooted against the President, a meeting was called for, to be held on 16.02.2022. In the meeting, the no confidence motion was passed.

7. Out of the total strength of the committee which is fifteen, eight members were present in the meeting. Out of the eight members, five were elected members and three were ex-officio members. Out of them, one ex-officio member and five elected members voted in favour of the no confidence. Thus, the no confidence motion was declared as passed with majority of six votes. Out of the total strength of fifteen members of the committee, the presence of eight members constituted the quorum. Out of the eight members present, six has voted in favour of the no confidence.

8. For a moment, accepting the contentions of the petitioners that the ex-officio members do not have the right to vote, and thus one vote cast by an ex-officio member is excluded, still there remains five votes cast by the five elected members. The total number of members present being eight, still five constitutes the majority. Thus, in any event, the no confidence motion could only be taken to have passed. Therefore, prima facie there is no warrant to interfere with the proceedings.

Leaving open the rights of the petitioners to avail such remedy, and leaving open all the contentions of the petitioners, the writ petitions are dismissed.

Sd/-

Sathish Ninan, Judge

vdv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5667/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE STATE CO-

OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION DATED

15.7.2019 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAW CLAUSE 5 & 6, PAGES 1, 6 TO 8 OF THE BYELAW OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED

25.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.1.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.2.2022 FILED BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 27.8.2019 Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DAD 16.2.2022 IN THE NO CONFIDENCE MOTION APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3842/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE STATE CO-

OPERAT