Statutory evidentiary presumptions in cooperative meeting minutes outweigh informal attendance claims.

1. The above appeals are directed against the common judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.17331 and 17200 of 2021. Among the appeals, W.A. No.500 of 2022 is directed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.17200 of 2021 and W.A.No.506 of 2022 is directed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.17331 of 2021. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petitions. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in W.P.(C).No. 17331 of 2021.

2. The petitioners, six in number, were members of the Managing Committee of the third respondent, a Co - operative Society registered and functioning under the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act, 1963 (the Act). They were disqualified from holding the office under R.44 of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Rules, (the Rules) on the ground that they were absent in four consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee held on 14.12.2020, 18.12.2020, 23.12.2020 and 31.12.2020. Exts.P14 to P19 are the orders issued by the jurisdictional Joint Registrar, the competent authority, disqualifying the petitioners from holding office. Since the Managing Committee of the Society lost its quorum on account of the disqualification of the petitioners, an Administrator was appointed in terms of S.33(1) of the Act. Ext.P13 is the order appointing the Administrator. W.P.(C) No.17331 of 2021 is instituted challenging Ext.P13 as also Exts.P14 to P19 orders and W.P.(c) No. 17200 of 2021 is instituted by the remaining members of the Managing Committee challenging Ext.P13 order.

3. The fact that absence in four consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee would invite disqualification of a member is not disputed in the writ petition. The contention of the petitioners, however, was that they have attended the meetings, and yet their signatures do not find a place in the minutes since the Minutes Book is not being properly maintained by the Secretary. The petitioners relied on the Attendance Register, vouchers regarding sitting fee as also the entries in the Day Book indicating disbursement of sitting fee to them for having attended the meetings, in support of their contention. The contention of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.17200 of 2021 was that there was non - compliance of the first proviso to S.33(1) of the Act requiring publication to be effected in the notice board of the society calling for objection, before appointing Administrator. According to them, since the compliance of the aforesaid provision is mandatory, its non - compliance would make the resultant order illegal.

4. As far as W.P.(C) No.17331 of 2021 is concerned, the learned Single Judge took the view that the presence of a member in a meeting is to be primarily proved by the marking of attendance in the minutes and since the minutes of the meetings do not contain the signatures of the petitioners on the relevant dates, it has to be presumed that they were absent in the said meetings. As regards the case of the petitioners that they have received sitting fee, it was observed by the learned single Judge that receipt of sitting fee will not outweigh the probative value of the Minutes Book which is statutorily maintained. As far as W.P.(C) No.17200 of 2021 is concerned, the learned Single Judge took the view that the requirement in terms of the first proviso to S.31(1) is not mandatory; that insofar as there is no dispute to the fact that the Managing Committee lost its quorum on account of disqualification of the petitioners, the compliance of the said provision would not have served any purpose and therefore, the non - compliance of the provision does not vitiate