The disqualification from a board due to absence requires a mandatory notice period as per bye-laws, which must be adhered to for it to be enforceable.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this court challenging Ext.P19 order of the 3^rd respondent, through which the resolution of the 1^st petitioner to remove the 1^st respondent from the membership of the Board of Directors of the 2^nd petitioner Co-operative Society was set aside.

2. Sri. Arjun Raghavan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Ext.P19 order is bad for violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the 3^rd respondent did not provide to the petitioners a copy of the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent and also did not provide a copy of the report of the Assistant Registrar which was considered by the 3^rd respondent while passing Ext.P19 order. It is submitted that the 1^st respondent was removed from the membership of the Board of Directors because he was disqualified on account of the provisions in the bye-laws of the Society, which provide that a member who does not attend three consecutive meetings will be disqualified to continue as a member of the Board of Directors. The learned counsel also referred to Rule 44 (1) (j) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to contend that a person who attracts a disqualification in terms of the bye-laws of the Society will not be entitled to continue as a member of the Board of Directors. It is submitted that there was a WhatsApp group of the members of the Board of Directors through which notices convening the meetings were sent. It is submitted that the meetings in question were meetings held on 06.1.2025, 16.01.2025 and 30.01.2025, and since it is admitted that the 1^st respondent did not attend any of the three meetings, he has attracted the disqualification contemplated by the bye-laws. It is submitted that a staff member of the Society had also served a physical copy of the notice convening the meetings in question on the 1^st respondent. It is submitted that this aspect and the contention of the petitioners that notice of the meetings was circulated via WhatsApp were not considered by the 3^rd respondent while passing Ext.P19 order.

3. The learned Government Pleader contends that, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 44 (1) (j) of the 1969 Rules, the decision to remove an individual from the membership of the Board of Directors or Managing Committee must be made by the Registrar and not by the resolution of the Managing Committee. Furthermore, the 1st respondent cannot be deemed to have attained disqualification because the bye-laws contemplate five-day notice, which had admittedly not been provided to the 1^st respondent.

4. The learned counsel representing the 1^st respondent reiterates the contentions taken by the learned Government Pleader and asserts that the amendment proposed to the bye-laws, which reduces the notice period for meetings from five days to three days, was not approved by the Joint Registrar until 17.06.2025.

5. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proposal of the General Body to reduce the notice period for holding meetings of the Managing Committee/Board of Directors from five days to three days was taken on 18.12.2023. It is submitted that despite being petitioned, the Joint Registrar did not accord approval till a date after Ext.P19 order was passed. It is submitted that, since the General Body had approved the amendment of the bye-laws, the Society was giving only three days' notice for meetings, and the requirement of the bye-laws for giving five days' notice cannot be deemed to be mandatory. It is also submitted that the 1^st respondent had attended other meetings with a three-day notice and, therefore, he cannot take up the contention that he has not given sufficient notice of the meetings held on 06.01.2