T P PAULOSE Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)In this petition, Paulose and Vasu, who are respectively the President and Member of the Managing Committee of the Chenkara Service Cooperative Bank Limited, which is an affiliate of the Idukki District Cooperative Bank Limited, impugn the validity of the order of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the respondent herein, dated 14-7-1992 (Ext. P6 to this petition). By this order the respondent rescinded the resolution No. 2 dated 15-6-1989 by the Chenkara Cooperative Society by which the petitioner No. 2 was admitted to membership. This order was made under R.176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. An inquiry under R.16 and 27 was made before making the impugned order and a finding that Vasu was ineligible for admission as a member, entered into. Accordingly by the impugned order dated 14-7-1-992 the respondent rescinded the resolution. Vasu, the petitioner No. 2 had ceased to be a member of the society by reason of sub-rule (3) of R.16. The consequence was that by reason of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of R.44, Vasu ceased to be a member of the committee. Therefore the Registrar made a further order dated 14-7-1992 (Ext. P9). The order was under R.44(2) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. Thus Vasu lost the membership of the Managing Committee of the Chenkara Service Cooperative Bank, the affiliate of the Central Bank, Idukki District Cooperative Bank Ltd. These two orders are impugned in this original petition.
(2.)In O.P. No. 9529 of 1992 filed by M.S. Vasu the petitioner No. 2 herein and another member Sasidharan, elaborate arguments about the validity of the notice calling upon Vasu and Sasidharan to show cause against the proposed action under R.16, the validity of the order rescinding the resolutions under R.176 and the disqualification of Vasu and Sasidharan have been gone into and separate Judgment delivered. It as sufficient to state here that Vasu the petitioner. No. 2 and Sasidharan, have been held to have been disqualified from admission as members of the society.
(3.)Although the same orders are impugned in this original petition, two points have been urged by the petitioner. They are:
(1) R.176 empowers the Registrar to rescind resolutions of any meeting of "any society" or of "the committee of any society" if such resolution violates the provisions of the Act, Rules, Byelaws or lawful directions of the Registrar. But this power extends to the rescission of resolutions of any meeting of "the society" or of "the committee" of a society. The petitioner No. 2 a promoter of the society, became a member by reason of his joining the application for registration of the society. This body of promoters is neither the "society" nor "a committee" of the society. Therefore R.176 has no application to this case.
(ii) The petitioner No. 2 was held disqualified to be a member of the society. A declaration under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of R.44 that he ceased to be a member of the committee was made by Ext. P9. Although the petitioner No. 2 was heard in pursuance-of the notice under R.16, he was not given the "opportunity to state his objections" to the proposed declaration under clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of R.44 envisaged by sub-rule (3) of R.44.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.