George Thomas vs Kerala Tourism Development ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8482 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

     MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.932 OF 2020(N)


PETITIONER:

               GEORGE THOMAS
               AGED 64 YEARS
               S/O.THOMAS, ELENJIMATTOM HOUSE, MABARANIRAPPEL P.O.,
               BHARANGANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
               PREVIOUS PRESIDENT OF KERALA TOURISM
               DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.4418,
               WAGAMON.

               BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY

RESPONDENTS:

      1        KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
               NO.4418,
               WAGAMON, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685503, REPRESENTED BY ITS
               SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE.

      2        REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G),
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      3        KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

      4        PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR,
               KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
               NO.4418, 'A' UNIT INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
               REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), PEERUMEDU,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT-685501.




               SRI LAKSHMI NARAYAN SC
               SMT SHEEJA CS SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
15.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.932 OF 2020(N)             2




                               JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the delay on the part of the Part Time

Administrator to adopt the resolution to conduct the election to the

Board of Management of the Kerala Tourism Development Co-operative

Society Ltd. at Wagamon, the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner is

before this Court seeking directions.

2. The petitioner states that he was the President of the Board

of Management of the 1st respondent Society. The term of the

committee expired on 23.11.2019. The managing committee adopted

Ext.P2 resolution to hold the election on 21.11.2019 and forwarded the

same to the 3rd respondent Election Commission, which notified the

election to be held on that particular day. However, by Ext.P3 order, the

above order was cancelled by the 3rd respondent based on a report of

the Unit Inspector. Later, the defects were cured and a fresh resolution

was forwarded to the Election Commission. However, since the period of

Committee expired, the 4th respondent was appointed as Part Time

Administrator by order dated 27.11.2019. The said respondent has been

administering the society since then. According to the petitioner, the

4th respondent is duty bound to take a fresh resolution and forward the

same to the 3rd respondent so that the society can function on

democratic principles. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner

is before this Court seeking the following relief.

"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 4th respondent to adopt resolution to conduct the election of the Board of management to the 1st respondent Society within a time frame and to forward the same along with other necessary documents to the 3rd respondent and to conduct the election at the earliest."

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is

stated that the election proposed to be held on 21.11.2019 was

cancelled based on a report issued by the Unit Inspector that the 6B

Register was not properly maintained and that the amendment which

was carried out to the bye laws in the general body meeting held on

23.12.2017 for increasing the share value of 'A' class members was not

properly circulated among the members of the society. It is stated that

as the reason for cancellation of the election still exists and as it was not

cured by the committee, the Part time Administrator was unable to take

a decision to conduct the election.

4. I have heard Sri.P.V.Baby, the learned counsel appearing of

the petitioner and Smt.Sheeja C.S., the learned Senior Government

Pleader. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the

tenure of the Part time Administrator had expired on 26.11.2020 and it

is for the Government to issue orders to permit the Registrar to extend

the term of the Administrator. It is submitted that as and when the

Government issues orders, extending the term, the Administrator shall

take steps to forward the resolution to the 3rd respondent to facilitate

the conduct of the election in an expeditious manner.

5. In view of the submissions advanced by both sides, the

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Department of Co-

operation, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram is impleaded as an

additional 5th respondent. The learned Government Pleader shall take

notice. Registry to carry out the impleadment and make necessary

entries in the cause title.

6. The Administrator was put in charge of the management of

the society by order dated 27.11.2019. If that be the case, it was the

duty of the Administrator to correct the anomalies as he has been

conferred with the powers to exercise all or any of the powers and

functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and take all

such action as may be required in the interest of the society.

Resultantly, while disposing the writ petition, the following

directions are issued.

a) Within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment, the additional 5th respondent is directed

to pass orders permitting the 2nd respondent to extend the term

of the Administrator for a further period.

b) On receipt of the order, the 2nd respondent shall exercise

his powers and pass orders extending the term of the Administrator

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of 15

days.

c) On his term being so extended, the Administrator shall

arrange for the constitution of a new committee for which he shall

forward a resolution to the 3rd respondent. The same shall be done,

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, not later than 30 days from

the date on which the term is extended. On receipt of the resolution,

if there are no other impediments, the 3rd respondent shall take

immediate steps to hold the election to the managing committee, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 15 days from

the date of receipt of the resolution.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE DSV

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AMENDMENT OF THE BYELAW ALONG WITH CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENT DATED 19.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION ON 21.11.2019 ALONG WITH COMMITTEE RESOLUTION AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FORWARDED TO THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION ON 23.9.2019.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY TO MEMBERS.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION ON 30.1.2020 AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FORWARDED TO THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ON 21.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL