IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 14874 OF 2011 PETITIONER:

THE KOOVAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 3949, KOOVAPPALLY.P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

BY ADVS.

SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA CO-OPERATION (C)DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,KOTTAYAM-686001.

3 LILLYKUTTY STEPHEN, VANTHIYIL HOUSE, KOOVAPALLY.P.O., KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686001.

R3 BY ADV SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM R1 &R2 BY G.P. SRI.JOSHI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

..................................................

W.P.(C) No.14874 of 2011 .................................................. Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2022

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a Co-

operative Bank aggrieved by Exhibit P3 order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the 1^st respondent Government.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The committee of the society consists of 11 members. In a meeting of the committee held on 29.12.2008, though 9 members of the committee participated and they signed the attendance register and in the minutes book and attended the meeting till the end, by an inadvertent omission 5 members failed to sign the minutes after recording the resolutions in the minutes book. The 3^rd respondent herein filed Exhibit P1 complaint dated 18.03.2009 before the 2^nd respondent for rescinding the resolution passed on 29.12.2008 by the managing committee of the petitioner’s society alleging that there was no compliance with the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act and Rules in as much as there was no quorum for the meeting. The 2^nd respondent conducted an enquiry into the allegations and rejected Exhibit P1 complaint as per Exhibit P2 order dated 16.06.2020. Aggrieved by Exhibit P2 order, the 3^rd respondent preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent and by Exhibit P3 order dated 28.02.2011 the same was allowed holding that resolution passed by the committee of the petitioner bank held on 29.12.2008 is to be considered as illegal for want of sufficient quorum for the meeting. It is aggrieved by the said decision of the Government that the present writ petition is filed.

3. The 1^st respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit maintaining the stand that Exhibit P3 order is perfectly legal and valid in as much as there was no sufficient quorum for the meeting and the decision taken by the committee of the bank on 29.12.2008 is in violation of the rules and therefore illegal. The counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent also supported the said stand and contended that going by Clause 40 of the Bye-Law of the bank, it is mandatory that all decisions taken in the committee meeting must be entered in the minutes and then signed by the President, Secretary and also by all the directors present in the meeting.

4. I have heard Shri S. Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Joshi, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also Shri Liji J Vadakedom, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

5. Before getting into the merits of the matter, it is profitable to consider the procedure for the conduct of a meeting and about the quorum for the meeting as provided in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules as well as the bye-law of the petitioner Co- operative Society. Section 28 (5) of the Act deals with the quorum for a meeting of a committee which provides as follows:

“28. Appointment of committee.-

xxxx xxxx (5) The quorum for a