Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.M. Firoz, J
ABDUL NAZAR C.P. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 46471/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. K.M. Firoz, Sri. Ahamed Fazil
For the Respondents: Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, Sri. U.K. Devidas
Disqualification of a committee member under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules is not automatic and requires a formal declaration by the Registrar.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rule 44 - Disqualification of membership of Committee - The petitioner contends that a member who defaults on loan payments automatically ceases to be a member of the Committee after a specific notice period. The court held that disqualification under Rule 44 is not automatic and requires a formal declaration by the Registrar. (Paras 11-13)
(B) No Confidence Motion - The court emphasized that a no confidence motion is valid only when initiated by a qualified member of the Committee. The motion against the petitioner was supported by a majority, and thus the statutory consequences followed. (Paras 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, President of the Managing Committee, argued that a member who defaulted on a loan had ceased to be a member, making a no confidence motion against him invalid.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the 5th respondent remained a member until a formal declaration of disqualification was made by the Registrar, thus the no confidence motion was valid.
Issues: Whether the disqualification under Rule 44 is automatic and the validity of the no confidence motion initiated by a potentially disqualified member.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that disqualification is not automatic and requires a formal declaration, allowing the 5th respondent to participate in the no confidence motion.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court observed procedural requirements for declaring disqualification. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. counterarguments regarding the validity of the no confidence motion. (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court ruled disqualification is not automatic without registrar's declaration. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. no confidence motion valid as majority supported it. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a member of Anamangad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the 'Society', the 6th respondent. He is also the President of the Managing Committee of the Society which consists of 13 members.
2. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent, who is a member of the Managing Committee, had availed a loan from the Society on 23.02.2023 for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for a period of 12 months. He defaulted its re- payment and the term of loan expired on 23.02.2024. Accordingly, a demand notice as per the proviso to sub rule (2)(a) of Rule 44 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KCS Rules') was despatched by the Society to the 5th respondent by ordinary post on 27.01.2024 and a registered demand notice was despatched on 20.05.2024. It is stated that despite receipt of registered notice and within a period of one month thereafter, the 5th respondent failed to clear off the arrears. Therefore, the petitioner states that, the 5th respondent ceased to be a member of the Managing Committee as on 25.06.2024, i.e., after one month from receipt of the demand notice. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext. P2 representation dated 20.12.2024 before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for formal declaration of disqualification of the 5th respondent with retrospective effect. 3. On 21.12.2024, the petitioner received Ext. P3 notice of no confidence motion dated 16.12.2024 against him, scheduled for 04.01.2025, issued by the Assistant Registrar (General) pursuant to a notice of intention to move the motion signed by the 5th respondent and six others before the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies. Ext. P4 is the proceedings of the Joint Registrar dated 13.12.2024 authorising the Assistant Registrar (General) to take steps to convene the meeting of the Committee for consideration of the motion.
4. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent has ceased to be a member of the Managing Committee by operation of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub rule (1) of Rule 44 of the KCS Rules with effect from 25.06.2024 as he failed to clear off the defaulted arrears as against the registered demand notice dated 20.05.2024. A formal declaration by the Registrar under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules on Ext. P2 representation that the 5th respondent has ceased to be a member of the Committee, alone is awaited and merely because the declaration is pending, the 5th respondent is not eligible to continue as a member of the Managing Committee. It is stated that the 5th respondent has accrued disqualification with effect from 25.06.2024 and he ceased to be a member from that date and the Joint Registrar ought not to have acted upon the notice of intention to move the no-confidence motion signed by the 5th respondent and others, as a notice of no-confidence motion mooted by a person who ceased to be a member of the Managing Committee is void ab initio. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks to quash Exts. P3 and P4 and for a declaration that the 5th respondent has ceased to be a member of the Managing Committee of the 6th respondent Society.
5. The vacation Court before which the writ petition came up for consideration on 03.01.2025 directed that the result of the no confidence motion scheduled on 04.01.2025 will be subject to the result of the contentions raised by the petitioner, which have to be adjudicated by the regular Court, after re-opening. It was observed that the result of the no confidence motion can be declared, however, no action pursuant thereto shall be taken until the contentions of the petitioner are consid
