Kerala High Court
Rajeena vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 7 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8896 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 RAJEENA
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O PRASOON, KATTILPARAMBATH, VENGERI, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673010.
2 SUMATHI P
W/O ASHRAF, RESIDING AT SUASORY, KARUVASSERY, KOZHIKODE PIN-
673010.
3 PREMALATHA K K.
W/O CHANDRAHASAN, KIZHAKKEKURUMBANIYIL, VENGERI, KOZHIKODE,
PIN-673010.
4 BEENA P M.
W/O PRATHEESH KUMAR, MARAKKATTUVAYAL, VENGERI, KOZHIKODE,
PIN-673010.
5 LATHA K K
W/O SIVADASAN, KALLUVETTUKUZHIYIL, VENGERI, KOZHIKODE, PIN-
673010.
6 NEETHU U P
W/O SUBITH, THERNATTIL, VENGERI, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673010.
7 PRABITHA
W/O BABU, RESIDING AT VAISHNAVAM, KIZHAKKEPALAKKUNI, VENGERI,
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673010.
8 SABITHA
W/O HARSHAN, RESIDING AT SNEHAM, METHALA VEETTIL, ERANJIKKAL,
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673303.
BY ADVS.
B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
ANITHA RAVINDRAN
HARISANKAR N UNNI
N.S.SHAMILA
WP(C) NO. 8896 OF 2022 -2-
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G),
PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673004.
2 CITY VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.D.3012
ERANHIPALAM P O, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
3 THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
CITY VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.D.3012, ERANHIPALAM
P O, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020., REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
M.SASINDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No.8896 of 2022
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2022
J U D G M E N T
Order of supersession under Section 32 of the Co-
operative Societies Act (Ext.P9), is under challenge in
this writ petition.
2. The Managing Committee of the second respondent
Society consists of 12 members. Four members resigned.
The remaining eight members are the writ petitioners. On
31.08.2021, the Committee was superseded. The order of
supersession was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C)
No.22509/2021. Pending consideration of the same, the
authority withdrew the order without prejudice to the
right to proceed afresh after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the Committee. Ext.P2 is the judgment in
the writ petition. In the meanwhile, Ext.P3 notice was
issued to the members for a hearing on 03.11.2021. The
hearing was adjourned thereafter on various occasions.
Thereafter Ext.P6 notice dated 25.01.2022 was issued,
W.P.(C) No.8896 of 2022
fixing the date for hearing as 04.02.2022. To the said
notice, the third petitioner herein submitted Ext.P7
objections pointing out that, the notice was received
only on the previous day evening and further, such a
notice has not been served on the other committee
members. She sought for further time for hearing.
However, without grant of further time, first respondent
passed Ext.P9 order of supersession.
3. Heard Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel for
respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
4. Ext.P1 order of supersession is challenged on
grounds more than one- (1) mala fides; (2) lack of
notice mandated under Section 32(1); and (3) lack of
'consultation' mandated under Section 32(2).
5. Alleging mala fides the petitioners would
contend:- the Managing Committee took charge on
20.08.2018, thereafter on 29.07.2019, the Committee was
W.P.(C) No.8896 of 2022
kept under suspension. This was followed by an order of
supersession on 31.08.2021. Challenging the order of
supersession, W.P.(C) No.22509/2021 was filed. When the
Writ petition was pending, the order of supersession was
withdrawn and a fresh notice for hearing under Section
32 of the Act was issued. When the order of supersession
was withdrawn, the Managing Committee was to be
reinstated in office. Seeking restoration in office,
petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.7321/2022. Pending the writ
petition, Ext.P9 order of supersession has been passed.
Therefore, the entire attempt is to keep the Managing
Committee out of office, it is contended.
6. While it is true that since 29.07.2019, Managing
Committee is out of office, I am of the opinion that the
facts as projected above by itself would not lead to a
conclusion or a finding of mala fides. The said
contention is accordingly rejected.
7. Coming to the contention regarding lack of
notice under Section 32(1), as noticed supra, in the
W.P.(C) No.8896 of 2022
present case, the notice for hearing was originally
issued with the date for hearing as 03.11.2021. The date
was repeatedly adjourned thereafter. Ext.P6 is the
notice that was finally issued fixing the date of
hearing as 22.01.2022. The third petitioner appeared and
submitted Ext.P7 objection pointing out that such a
notice has not been served on the other committee
members. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on
instructions, submits that Ext.P6 notice was issued to
the members by ordinary post. Section 104 of the Co-
operative Societies Act mandates service of notice by
registered post. There is no material to show that
notices were served on the other members. Though it
could be said to be a continuation of the proceedings
already initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 notice issued on
23.10.2021, in view of the long lapse of time, the first
respondent was right in issuing Ext.P6 notice to the
members intimating the date of appearance. However, the
same should have been sent by registered post in
W.P.(C) No.8896 of 2022
compliance with Section 104 of the Act. The petitioners
plead absence of notice. In the light of the above, it
could only be held that, there is lack of notice
mandated under Section 32(1) of the Act. Ext.P9 order of
supersession is liable to be interfered with on that
ground.
8. That apart, it is seen that there has been no
effective consultation with the circle Co-operative
Union and the financing Bank as required under Section
32(2) of the Act. There is nothing to indicate that the
tentative findings arrived at, and the objections
submitted by the third petitioner, were forwarded to the
consultees, thus violating the mandate under the
statute. Mere intimation to the financing Bank and the
Circle Co-operative Union does not amount to
consultation as required under Section 32(2). [See
Ellakkal Service Co-Operative Bank v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 85),
Sahadevan v. Padmanabhan (2004 (1) KLT 192), Johny Kachappally v.
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2022 (1) KLT 183) and State of
W.P.(C) No.8896 of 2022
M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach (2013 (2) KLT 733(SC))]. Ext.P9 order is
liable to be interfered with on the said ground also.
Accordingly Ext.P9 order of supersession is
quashed. This is without prejudice to the rights to pass
fresh orders on complying with the statutory
requirements. The Managing Committee shall be restored
in office forthwith.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8896/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.S/1824/2019 DATED
9/7/2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.22509/2021 DATED 27.10.2021.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CS.1824/2019 DATED
23.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
3.11.2021 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM THE 7TH
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
9.11.2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C.S.1824/2019
DATED 25.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.2.2022 FROM
THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING ADDRESSED TO THE
8TH PETITIONER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.S.1824/2019 DATED
28.02.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Annexure Annexure R1(a)
-----
