J U D G M E N T

Ext.P4 order of the first respondent, under Section

33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), holding lack of quorum for the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent Society, and appointing an administrative committee, is under challenge in this writ petition by five members of the Managing Committee.

2. Heard Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Bimal K. Nath, learned Senior Government Pleader. In spite of service of notice on respondents 2 to 5, there is no appearance.

3. According to the petitioners, the managing committee hold sufficient quorum. The total strength of the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent Society is 9 (nine). The Managing Committee came into office on 04.10.2017. Thereafter, the following events transpired in relation to the strength of the Committee:-

4. On the disqualification of two members on

26.08.2021 [Sl. no. (c) above], and the resignation of respondents 2 and 3 on 19.12.2021 [Sl. no. (d) above], the strength of the Managing Committee came down to five. In terms of Section 28(5) of the Act, the quorum for the Committee is just above 50% of the total strength. It being so, five out of nine constitutes sufficient quorum of the Committee; hence Ext.P4 order finding lack of quorum and appointing administrative committee is bad in law, is the contention.

5. According to the first respondent, the nomination of Smt.Saraswathi Amma [Sl.No.(b) in the tabular column above], alleged to have been made on 17.06.2021, is bad, and hence the Managing Committee presently consists of only 4 members. The same being less than 50%, lacks the quorum mandated under Section

28(5) of the Act, is the contention.

6. The reason why the first respondent contends that the nomination made on 17.06.2021 is bad is that, the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 27.03.2021 had relegated the issue regarding nomination of member to the vacancy that arose on 24.11.2020, to the General Body scheduled on 30.03.2021. Though the General Body nominated Smt.Saraswathi Amma towards the vacancy, nomination of Committee member was not in the agenda of the General Body meeting. Nomination not being one of the items in agenda could not have been transacted in the General Body and hence the nomination is bad, is the contention.

7. A perusal of Ext.P1, the minutes of the Managing Committee held on 17.06.2021 indicates that, after referring to the decision of the General Body, the Committee by majority decision resolved to nominate Smt.Saraswathi Amma as a member of the Committee. Section 28(1J) gives authority to the Committee to nominate member in the contingency as mentioned therein. The nomination of Smt.Saraswathi Amma is made by the Committee in accordance with the powers granted under the Act. The nomination having been made by the Committee in terms of the Act, is legal and valid.

Therefore, the said contention fails.

8. The contention of the petitioners that the Managing Committee consists of 5 members, and it constitutes sufficient quorum in terms of Section 28(5) of the Act is to be upheld and I do so. Ext.P5 order holding that the Committee of the 5th respondent lacks quorum, and further appointing an Administrative Committee is bad in law.

9. In the result, Ext.P4 order is quashed. The administration of the Society shall forthwith be handed over to the Managing Committee of the Society.

Writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 65/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 17-06-

2021 OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED

19-12-2021 T