Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 37083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, J
SHAJI MOHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA 1348/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. George Poonthottam, Ms. Kavya Varma
For the Respondents: Mr. Gopalakrishna Kurup, Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, Sri.Imam Gregorious Karat, Sri.P.Ravindran
Only specifically authorized delegatees may participate in no-confidence motions, ensuring proper representation according to amended rules.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 - Section 31(2A) and (3) - Kerala Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 2025 - Motion of no-confidence - Procedure for casting votes by delegatees in no-confidence motion was questioned on the basis of amendment rules prohibiting unauthorized voting; it was ruled that a delegatee must be specifically authorized to participate. (Paras 3, 4, 14)
(B) Ubi jus ibi remedium - The principle affirms that where there is a violation of rights, there should be an appropriate remedy available; the amendment’s compliance was upheld in view of ensuring members could lawfully challenge or participate in the no-confidence motion process. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the order that permitted a no-confidence motion against the Managing Committee of an Apex Society, claiming improper delegation and voting procedures were violated. A series of litigations preceding the current case focused on procedural compliance of no-confidence motions within cooperative societies.
Findings of Court:
The court maintained that established procedures as per amended rules must be adhered to for the no-confidence motions, emphasizing lawful voting rights for participants. Any unauthorized votes challenged the integrity of the no-confidence voting process.
Issues: The primary issues included the legality of votes from unauthorized delegates and whether the proper procedure for the no-confidence motion was followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that only specifically authorized delegates can participate in a no-confidence vote, which is aligned with the amended rules, to ensure legitimate representation in cooperative governance.
Result: Writ appeal stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the case questions the validity of a no-confidence motion against an elected committee. (Para 2) |
| 2. procedures for initiating and conducting a no-confidence motion must comply with legal rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments concerning delegate readiness and voting legality were central to the appeal. (Para 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. judicial review ensures that cooperatives conform to constitutional and procedural integrity. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. compliance with statutory rules dictates the validity of actions in no-confidence motions. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. the appeal affirmed the necessity of observing legal processes in cooperative governance. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2025 Amit Rawal, J.
The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 03.06.2025 rejecting the interim prayer to keep in abeyance the no-confidence motion against the elected Managing Committee of the Apex Society namely Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd, sought in the writ petition claiming the following reliefs:-
“i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for records and leading to Exhibits P6 to P8 and to quash the same as the same being contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court;
ii. Issue a writ declaring that the delegate of a member society cannot be equated to the status of a member for moving a no-confidence motion as provided in Exhibit P5;
iii. Issue a writ declaring that the amendment made as per Exhibit P5 is unconstitutional and against the scheme under which the election to the Managing Committee is held and it is arbitrary and bad in law;
(iii)(a) Issue a writ declaring that the permission granted to the delegate from Kattakada PCARD Bank and the delegate from Vadakara PCARD Bank is without the sanction of law and therefore the said vote is required to be excluded;
(iii)(b) Issue a writ of declaring that by allowing the nominated members in the Board of Directors to cast vote in the no confidence motion is contrary to the specific prohibition as contained in Section 31 (2A) and (3) of Section 31 of the KCS Act and their votes are required to be excluded.
(iii)(c) Issue a writ declaring that the vote cast by the three elected members in the Board of Directors who are part of the corporate body in favour of the no confidence motion cannot be counted as they are disabled from casting the vote in favour of the no confidence motion as long as they continue as part of the corporate body;
iv. Dispense with the filing of English translation of vernacular documents;
v. Grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The writ petition is based upon certain averments that in the past also there have been an attempt to pass no confidence motion against the then elected and appointed Administrative Committee of the Apex Society. There had been series of litigations in the year 2021 and by virtue of the aforementioned, though the elections of the Apex Society was held in March, 2023, but the elected members were not permitted to assume the office owing to the litigations and it was only in September, 2023 they could assume the office. There was again a dispute of convening of the General Body Meeting and by virtue of the interim order dated 03.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No.34636 of 2024, Registrar of Co-operative Societies had been directed to restore the administration of the elected Managing Committee provisionally, subject to further orders of this Court and with a further direction to convene fresh General Body Meeting to discuss the unfinished Agenda of the last General Body Meeting forthwith.
3. On 03.04.2025, the State Government caused an amendment by introducing Rule 43C in the Kerala Co- Operative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 2025 (hereinafter called the Amendment Rules, 2025) dealing with the motion of no-confidence for removal of the managing committee of the Apex Society by General Body. The said Rule 43C reads as follows:
