Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7874 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 March, 2021
W.P.(C) No.5236/2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.5236 OF 2021(D)
PETITIONER/S:
1 S.MANOHARAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. SADANANDAN,RESIDING AT SHOBHA MANDIRAM,
KEEZHATTINGAL.P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101 (MEMBERSHIP
NO.1444)
2 K.SHOBHA
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. S.MANOHARAN, RESIDING AT SHOBHA MANDIRAM,
KEEZHATTINGAL.P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101 (MEMBERSHIP
NO.1445)
3 SINDHU.S.
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O. SUKUMARAN,RESIDING AT PALAVILA VEEDU,
KEEZHATTINGAL.P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101 (MEMBERSHIP
NO.2345)
4 SUNITHA.S.,
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O. ANI, RESIDING AT A.S.BHAVAN,
KEEZHATTINGAL.P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101 (MEMBERSHIP
NO.2625)
5 SINDHU.S.
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O. SARASEE, RESIDING AT POOVATHOORVILA VEEDU,
KEEZHATTINGAL.P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101 (MEMBERSHIP
NO.2638)
6 SASI.C.
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. CHELLAPPAN, RESIDING AT KANNANKARA VEEDU,
KEEZHATTINGAL.P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
W.P.(C) No.5236/2021 2
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101 (MEMBERSHIP
NO.2650)
7 SATHI.R.
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O. VISWANATHAN, RESIDING AT KANNANKARA VEEDU,
KEEZHATTINGAL.P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101 (MEMBERSHIP
NO. 2637)
8 SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT CHARUVALA VEEDU,
KEEZHATTINGAL.P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101 (MEMBERSHIP
NO.2739)
9 SREDHARAN PILLAI
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O. SANKARAPILLAI, RESIDING AT BINEESH BHAVAN,
KEEZHATTINGAL.P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101 (MEMBERSHIP
NO.2618)
10 RAMA DEVI
AGED 71 YEARS
W/O. NARAYANAPILLAI, RESIDING AT VINEESH BHAVAN,
KEEZHATTINGAL.P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101 (MEMBERSHIP
NO.2617)
BY ADVS.
SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SHRI.SUMEEN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION
OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR CO-BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 033
2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR GENERAL,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101
3 JOINT REGISTRAR,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101
4 KEEZHATTINGAL RURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,
NO.1540,
W.P.(C) No.5236/2021 3
KEEZHATTINGAL P.O.,CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101,REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY
5 THE SECRETARY,
KEEZHATTINGAL RURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
NO.1540, KEEZHATTINGAL P.O.,CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101
SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER BIMAL.K.NATH
R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN,SR.GP BIMAL K NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.5236/2021 4
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of March 2021
Petitioners are the members of the 4 th respondent Co-operative
Society. Notification was issued for the election to the Board of Directors
to be held on 14/3/2021. It seems that, the subscription to the share
capital was increased from Rs.50 to Rs.100/- by the 4th respondent.
Petitioner has not remitted the amount due, in the light of that decision. It
appears that, the decision to enhance the subscription to the share capital
was taken in the year 2016. It seems that in the voters list petitioners'
names were absent and due to the non compliance of Section 11 (2) of the
Act. A representation was submitted by the petitioners before the Assistant
Registrar General as Ext.P2, raising these grievances. Contending that
no decision was taken on Ext.P2 and requesting that the petitioners may
be permitted to vote in the meanwhile, petitioners have approached this
Court. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
enhancement of share capital was not intimated to the members
individually by separate notices and the petitioners did not get an
opportunity to challenge that. Decision.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing
counsel for the first respondent- Election Commission, the learned standing
counsel for the Co-operative society and also the learned senior
Government Pleader.
3. Vehemently opposing the application, learned counsel for the
respondent society invited my attention to the decision of this Court in
Rajan K.S. v. Electoral Officer (Asst. Registrar of Coop. Societies
(General,Thaliikulam) 2009 (3) KHC 886) wherein the court held that a
reading of section 11 of the Act in the light of Rule 12 indicate that section
11 and the individual notices as as contemplated under section 11(2)
cannot have any relevance when the society enhances its share value. The
above decision answers the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that they did not get an individual notice. Even otherwise, I am
not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that, the petitioners
were not aware of this amendment till now, since the amendment took
place long back in the year 2016.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding
removal from membership in the light of Rule 28A, learned standing
counsel for the society invited my attention to the decision reported in
Keecheri Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.668 and Another v.
Ramesh M.M.and Others(2020 (1) KHC 167). In this decision, the
Division Bench of this court declared that those members who were
admitted or had not paid the enhanced share value within 60 days of the
election, as originally notified, are not entitled to be included in the voters
list or eligible to exercise their franchise. The Division Bench had clarified
that non payment of the enhanced share value will have bearing on right
to vote and only a member who had paid the share capital prior to sixty
days of election, can be a qualified voter. The above decision answers the
second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. It is true that the competent authority has not considered these
issues and the petitioners have not been given an opportunity of being
heard on Ext.P2. At this stage, I feel that consideration of Ext.P2 has
become only academic. Hence, I find no purpose in directing the authority
to consider and to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
dpk
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SCHEDULING THE ELECTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY DATED 03.02.2021
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!