T.C.Chandran vs Edathala Service Co-Operative ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3507 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                               &
            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
 TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944
                      WA NO. 383 OF 2022
        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.02.2022 IN WP(C)
             NO.2471/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

           T.C.CHANDRAN,
           AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. CHATHAN KANNAN,
           THORAYITHUNDIYIL, VISWA NAGAR, EDATHALA,
           EDATHALA NORTH P.O, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM 683 561.
           BY ADVS.
           M.SASINDRAN
           P.SHAHEED
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 1ST RESPONDENT:

    1      EDATHALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.
           3430, EDATHALA NORTH P.O, PIN 683 106, ALWAYE,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
           SECRETARY.
    2      BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EDATHALA SERVICE CO-
           OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3430,
           EDATHALA NORTH P.O, PIN 683 106, ALWAYE,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
           PRESIDENT, K.M. SHAMSUDHEEN.
    3      THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
           (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM 682 011.
           SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM
           SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SR GP

     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Writ Appeal No.383 of 2022             2



              P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
               -----------------------------------------------
                   Writ Appeal No.383 of 2022
               -----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2022.


                               JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 24.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No.2471 of 2022. The appellant

was the second respondent in the writ petition. Parties are

referred to in this judgment, as they appear in the writ petition.

2. The first petitioner is a co-operative society

registered and functioning under the Kerala Co-operative

Societies Act, 1969 (the Act). The second petitioner is the

Managing Committee of the first petitioner society. The first

petitioner preferred an application before the first respondent,

the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies exercising the

powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Act

in relation to the affairs of the first petitioner society, invoking

Rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (the Rules),

seeking sanction for incurring expenditure for reconstruction of

a building of the society. The request was submitted based on

the decision taken on 10.1.2021 by the general body of the

society. As per Ext.P11 order, the request aforesaid was

rejected by the first respondent. Ext.P11 order was under

challenge in the writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge found that the

reasons, on the basis of which Ext.P11 order was passed, are

unsustainable in law and consequently quashed Ext.P11 order

and directed the first respondent to pass fresh orders on the

request made by the first petitioner, after affording them an

opportunity of hearing. The second respondent, a member of

the first petitioner society, is aggrieved by the said decision of

the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the second

respondent as also the learned counsel for the first petitioner.

5. The grievance of the second respondent, in

essence, is that the decision taken by the general body of the

first petitioner society to reconstruct the building referred to in

the writ petition is against the interests of the first petitioner

society.

6. It is settled that once a person becomes a

member of a co-operative society, he loses his individuality with

the society and he has no independent rights thereafter except

those given to him by the statute and the by-laws [See Daman

Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 973]. Going by the

scheme of the Act, the general body of a society being its

supreme body, it is free to take any decision which does not

contravene the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and a

member of the society is bound by the decisions taken by the

general body. Needless to say, so long as the decision taken by

the general body is in accordance with the provisions of the Act

and the Rules, a member of the society cannot have any

grievance against the said decision in that capacity.

In the said view of the matter, the second

respondent has no locus standi to challenge the decision of the

general body of the society to reconstruct the building referred

to in the writ petition. The writ appeal, in the circumstances, is

without merits and the same is, accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Sd/-

C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.

YKB