Edathala Service Co-Operative ... vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2101 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
  THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA,
                                1943
                     WP(C) NO. 2471 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1       EDATHALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3430,
            EDATHALA NORTH P.O., PIN-683106, ALWAYE,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

    2       BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EDATHALA SERVICE
            CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3430, EDATHALA NORTH
            P.O., PIN-683106, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K.M. SHAMSUDHEEN.

            BY ADVS.
            D.SOMASUNDARAM
            ARUN CHANDRAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1       JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
            (GENERAL),,
            ERNAKULAM-682011.

    2       T.C. CHANDRAN,THORAYITHUNDIYIL, VISWA NAGAR,
            EDATHALA, EDATHALA NORTH P.O., ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM-
            683561.

            BY ADVS.
            T.B.HOOD
            M.ISHA
            AMAL KASHA

            SR.G.P SMT. RESMI.K.M




     THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   24.02.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W P(C) NO.2471 of 2022
                                   2



                             JUDGMENT

Rejection of sanction for reconstruction of the

building wherein the head office of the 1 st petitioner

Society is situated, is under challenge in this writ

petition.

2. Heard Sri.Arun Chandran learned counsel for

the petitioners, Smt.M.Isha learned counsel for 2 nd

respondent and Smt.Resmi K.M learned senior

Government Pleader. Also perused the counter

affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and the

statement filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent.

3. 1st petitioner is a Society and the 2nd

petitioner is its Board of Directors. 1 st petitioner

is stated to be a Class I Super Grade Bank. Ext P4

application was submitted by the Bank before the

Joint Registrar in terms of Rule 54 of the Co-

operative Societies Rules seeking sanction for

expenditure of amounts for reconstruction of the

building. The request was based on the decision of W P(C) NO.2471 of 2022

the General Body of the society dated 10.01.2021 and

of the Managing Committee dated 05.03.2021. Ext P7

application was made before the Joint Registrar

seeking permission to shift the head office to its

Choondy branch pending reconstruction of the

building. As per Ext P11 order, the requests were

rejected by the 1st respondent.

4. For rejection of the request the 1 st

respondent reached the following findings:

(i) The Assistant Executive Engineer has

reported structural instability to the existing

building and there cannot be a construction of

any floor over the present building.

(ii) The Assistant Engineer has not granted

sanction for demolition of the existing

building.

(iii) An extent of 58.5 cents of property has

been purchased nearby the property wherein the

head office is presently situated, and the

society has been permitted to construct a head W P(C) NO.2471 of 2022

office building therein.

(iv) The road running adjoining the property

wherein the head office building is presently

situated is narrow, and if the road is widened,

then the new building will have to be

demolished, resulting in huge loss to the

society.

5. As regards the finding No.(i) above, the

request is to demolish and to reconstruct. Therefore

it is of no relevance.

6. Regarding finding No.(ii), the sanction of

Assistant Engineer is not required for the

demolition.

7. Coming to finding No.(iii), the mere fact

that another property has been purchased with the

intend of constructing a head office, by itself, need

not prevent the society from effecting reconstruction

of the existing building. That apart, it is not in

dispute that legal proceedings are pending in respect

of the said property on the objection that the nature W P(C) NO.2471 of 2022

of the said property is indicated in the revenue

records as wet land. Therefore, construction of a

building therein would not be possible, as of now.

8. Proceeding to the next reason, the mere fact

that the adjoining road is a narrow one and that at

some point of time in future the road might be

widened, is not a ground to refuse sanction for

reconstruction of the building. There is not even a

case projected that, at present, there is even a

proposal to widen the said road.

9. Therefore, denial of sanction on the said

grounds cannot be sustained.

10. Ext P8 is the report of the Assistant

Executive Engineer, PWD dated 29.09.2020 with regard

to the structural stability and fitness of the

building in question. In the report he has

categorically stated that the building does not

satisfy the minimum structural requirements under the

Indian Standards. Further it has been stated that

the building suffers from severe instability and that W P(C) NO.2471 of 2022

cracks have been formed even on the roof slabs. The

petitioners have produced Ext P1 series photographs

to impress upon the Court regarding the condition of

the building. Though the respondents contend that

the photographs relate only to a portion of the

building and not the main structure as such, in the

light of Ext P8 report of the Assistant Engineer, I

do not think that the finding of this Court need be

on the basis of Ext P1 series photographs.

11. As noticed above, the findings on which the

1st respondent rejected sanction are not

satisfactory. Ext P8 report of the Assistant

Executive Engineer indicates that the building is

dilapidated and unstable. In the light of the above,

I am of the opinion that the 1 st respondent needs to

reconsider the request of the petitioners.

12. Accordingly Ext P11 order is quashed. The 1st

respondent shall pass fresh orders on the requests

after affording opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner. Let orders be passed within a period of W P(C) NO.2471 of 2022

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Writ Petition disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Sathish Ninan, Judge

vdv W P(C) NO.2471 of 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2471/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 FEW PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE BAD PLIGHT OF THE CONDITION OF THE PRESENT BUILDING IN WHICH ITS HEAD OFFICE IS FUNCTIONING.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.13 IN THE MEETING HELD ON 10/01/2021 TO DEMOLISH THE PRESENT BUILDING AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ONE.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO.771 DATED 05/03/2021 FOR PERMISSION OF JOINT REGISTRAR TO USE BUILDING FUND.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18/03/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.14 DATED 19/12/2021 OF THE GENERAL BODY OF THE BANK TO SPEND BUILDING FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION AND INTERIOR WORKS.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.737 DATED 19/02/2021 OF THE BOARD TO AUCTION THE EXISTING BUILDING.

Exhibit P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.738 DATED 19/02/2021.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23/02/2021 FOR SHIFTING THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE CHOONDI BRANCH.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3-

523/2020 DATED 29/09/2020 OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT.

W P(C) NO.2471 of 2022

TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE DATED 03/02/2021 OF THE KEISCO VALUING Exhibit P9 THE EXISTING BUILDING FOR RS.1,10,000/-.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/07/2021 IN WPC NO. 8158/2021 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. CRP(2) 1138/21/K.DIS DATED 08/12/2021 OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR REJECTED THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATIONS.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

CRP(1)2772/18/K.DIS DATED 20/08/2018 ISSUED BY JOINT REGISTRAR.