[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
C.T. Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2025
Author: K. Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2025:KER:92768
W.P (C) Nos.46208/2024
&
24928/2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
WP(C) NO. 46208 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
C.T. SAJITH
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. LATE K. BALAKRISHNAN,
PROFESSIONAL DIRECTOR,
INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, THALASSERY,
KANNUR-670 103, RESIDING AT SREE RAM NIVAS,
THIRUVANGAD P.O, THALASSERY, KANNUR.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
2025:KER:92768
W.P (C) Nos.46208/2024
&
24928/2025
2
3 MAMBARAM CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL SOCIETY LTD. NO. C
952
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL,
THIRUVANGAD P.O, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670103
4 THE PRESIDENT
MAMBARAM CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL SOCIETY LTD. NO. C
952, INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL,
THIRUVANGAD P.O, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR, PIN - 670103
5 DR. RANJITH RAMAKRISHAN
GYNECOLOGIST,
INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL,
THIRUVANGAD P.O, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR, PIN - 670103
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SHRI.ANSHIN K.K
SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).24928/2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:92768
W.P (C) Nos.46208/2024
&
24928/2025
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
WP(C) NO. 24928 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL
(A UNIT OF MAMBARAM CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL SOCIETY
LTD. NO. C.952),
MANJODI,
THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
PIN - 670103
2 DR RANJITH RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O C.P. RAMAKRISHNAN, 'DREAMS',
THIRUVANGAD P.O.,
THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670103
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SHRI.ANSHIN K.K
2025:KER:92768
W.P (C) Nos.46208/2024
&
24928/2025
4
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
KANNUR, CIVIL STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670001
2 ADV.C.T.SAJITH
SRIRAM NIVAS, THIRUVANGADU.P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670103
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
SMT.C S SHEEJA, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.12.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).46208/2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:92768
W.P (C) Nos.46208/2024
&
24928/2025
5
'C.R'
K.BABU, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P (C) Nos.46208 of 2024 & 24928 of 2025
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Writ Petitions are disposed of by way of a common
judgment, as the subject matter is the same. The petitioner in
W.P(C) No.46208/2024 is respondent No.2 in W.P(C) No.24928/2025.
Respondent No.3 in W.P(C) No.46208/2024 is petitioner No.1 in
W.P(C) No.24928/2025. Respondent No.5 in W.P(C) No.46208/2024
is petitioner No.2 in W.P(C) No.24928/2025. Respondent No.2 in
W.P(C) No.46208/2024 is respondent No.1 in W.P(C) No.24928/2025.
2. In W.P(C) No.24928/2025, the petitioners seek the following
reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records leading
up to Exhibit P14 and to quash the same;
ii. Issue a writ declaring that the proceeding in its entirety
is an abuse of the process of law and therefore vitiated;
iii. Issue a writ declaring that the exercise of power by the
1st respondent in rescinding the resolution adopted to
2025:KER:92768
&
recall a co-opted member by the very same body is
beyond the powers conferred on the 1 st respondent under
Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and
therefore Exhibit-P14 is bad in law;
iv. Dispense with filing of the English translation of
vernacular documents; and
v. grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case."
3. In W.P(C) No.46208/2025, the petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:
"i) To declare that the appointment of the 5 th respondent to
the post of Professional Director is unjust, illegal and
arbitrary.
ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to be restored to
the post of Professional Director subject to the decision
taken in Ext.P4.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents
to restore the petitioner to the post of Professional
Director subject to the decision taken in Ext.P4.
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 nd
respondent to take a decision on Ext.P8, while
considering Ext.P4, and to keep in abeyance all further
actions pursuant to the order of appointment of the 5 th
respondent as Professional Director of the Indira Gandhi
Co-operative Hospital, Thiruvangad.
v) To declare that the appointment of the 5 th respondent as
Professional Director shall be kept in abeyance till the
2nd respondent takes a decision on Exts.P4 and P8.
vi) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be
prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
under the facts and circumstances of the Case.
vii) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular
documents."
4. W.P(C) No.24928/2025 is taken as the lead case.
2025:KER:92768
&
5. Petitioner No.1 is a Hospital Society functioning at
Thalassery in Kannur District. The election to the Board of
Directors of the Society was held on 05.12.2021. After the election,
the present managing committee assumed office.
6. The managing committee had co-opted respondent No.2
under Section 28(1G) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 30.03.2022. The meeting of
the Board of Directors convened on 10.10.2024 unanimously decided
to withdraw respondent No.2 from the Board of Directors of the
Society. On 29.11.2024, the managing committee decided to co-opt
petitioner No.2. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
(Respondent No.1) issued Exhibit P4 notice on 24.12.2024 to the
committee, seeking an explanation regarding the removal of
respondent No.2 from the Board of Directors of the society and the
co-option of petitioner No.2. The managing committee issued
Exhibit P5 reply to the said notice. The Joint Registrar, on
13.01.2025, passed Ext.P6 order (order No.2204/2024/VCG/K.dis)
2025:KER:92768
&
rescinding the decision of the Board of Directors dated 10.10.2024
invoking jurisdiction under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').
7. The petitioners challenged Ext.P6 order before this Court
by filing W.P(C) No.3504/2025. This Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment
dated 30.01.2025, set aside Exhibit P6 order and directed the Joint
Registrar to proceed further after providing a copy of the complaint
submitted by respondent No.2 to the petitioners and arrive at a
logical conclusion after hearing both sides. The Joint Registrar
pursuant to the direction in Ext.P7 judgement, on 13.06.2025 passed
Ext.P14 order rescinding the decision of the Board of Directors of
the Society.
8. I have heard Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Smt.C.S.Sheeja,
the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.1.
2025:KER:92768
&
9. Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the continuation of a
co-opted member is only at the pleasure of the managing
committee. The learned Senior Counsel relied on Om Narain
Agarwal v. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur [(1993) 2 SCC 242] in
support of his contention. The learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the managing committee has every right to evaluate
the performance of a co-opted member and, thereafter, pass a
resolution to terminate such membership, if warranted. The
learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the committee, after
evaluating the performance of respondent No. 2, came to the
conclusion that he was not fit to continue as a member and that his
continuation was in no way beneficial to the management. The
learned Senior Counsel submitted that petitioner No.2 was
thereafter co-opted taking into account his expertise and
specialisation in the health sector, which is highly beneficial to the
functioning of the society. The learned Senior Counsel further
2025:KER:92768
&
argued that the remedy available to the affected persons, in the
event of a decision to rescind a resolution passed by the society, is
to challenge the same under Section 69 of the Act. The learned
Senior Counsel submitted that such a challenge to the decision
does not fall within the purview of Rule 176 of the Rules.
10. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2, submitted that the petitioners' challenge to Exhibit
P14, the order of the Joint Registrar, will not stand without
challenging Ext.P11, report of the Assistant Registrar (General),
Thalassery, which formed the foundation of the decision of the Joint
Registrar. The learned counsel submitted that the decision of the
managing committee to remove respondent No.2 is arbitrary and in
violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel
has taken me to Ext.P2, the decision of the managing committee
dated 10.10.2024, to contend that no reasons were cited in the
resolution to remove respondent No.2 from the managing
committee. The learned counsel further submitted that Ext.P3
2025:KER:92768
&
order, whereby petitioner No.2 was co-opted, also does not contain
any sufficient reason.
11. The learned counsel relying on Rule 176 of the Rules
submitted that, the power of the Joint Registrar while exercising
Rule 176 of the Rules is very wide. The learned counsel submitted
that the agenda finalised in the meeting convened on 10.10.2024, in
which the resolution to remove respondent No.2 was taken, did not
include the subject as part of the agenda. The learned counsel
submitted that no notice of hearing was given to respondent No.2.
It is vehemently contended that the decision of the committee is
perverse and arbitrary. The learned counsel, in the additional
written notes, also argued that the removal could only be effected
by invoking Rule 43-A of the Rules. The learned counsel relied on
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., [(2003) 2 SCC
111], Sumitha Mathew v. Kanjirappally Co-operative Agricultural and
Rural Development Bank Ltd. (2022 KHC 781), State of U.P. v. Sudhir
Kumar Singh [(2021) 19 SCC 706], Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE
2025:KER:92768
&
[(2015) 8 SCC 519], Edukanti Kistamma v. S. Venkatareddy [(2010) 1
SCC 756], Pavithran v. State of Kerala [2009 SCC OnLine Ker 6492],
Badrinath v. Govt. of T. N., [(2000) 8 SCC 395], State of Haryana v.
Raghubir Dayal, [(1995) 1 SCC 133] and Raj Soni v. Air Officer
Incharge Admn. [(1990) 3 SCC 261] in support of his contentions.
12. Smt. C.S.Sheeja, the learned Senior Government Pleader,
submitted that the Act and the Rules together constitute a complete
self-contained code. The learned Senior Government Pleader
submitted that the only manner in which a member of the managing
committee, whether co-opted or elected, could be removed is by
invoking Rule 43-A of the Rules. The learned Senior Government
Pleader submitted that the 'pleasure doctrine' highlighted by the
learned Senior Counsel is not applicable to the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act and Rules. The learned Senior Government Pleader
submitted that the Registrar has wide power under Rule 176 of the
Rules to rescind a decision of the managing committee of the
society. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a
2025:KER:92768
&
decision of the committee made without an agenda is in violation of
the principles of natural justice.
13. The fundamental question is the legality of the resolution
of the managing committee to remove a co-opted member of the
managing committee. As per Section 28 of the Act, the general
body of a society shall constitute a committee, for a period of five
years, in accordance with the bye-laws and entrust the
management of the affairs of the society to such committee. As
per Section 28(1G) of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in
the bye-laws of a society, the committee in office shall co-opt two
persons or representatives having specialized knowledge in certain
specified subjects.
14. Section 28(1G) of the Act reads thus:
"28. Appointment of committee.-(1) The general body of a
society shall constitute a committee, for a period five years,
in accordance with the bye-laws and entrust the
management of the affairs of the society to such
committee;
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
(1G) Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of
2025:KER:92768
&
a society, the Committee in office shall co-opt two persons
or representatives who are/were in paid service of a
Commercial Bank, Kerala State Co-operative Bank, an
Urban Co-operative Bank, Kerala State Agriculture and
Rural Development Bank, a Primary Co-operative
Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, erstwhile
District Co-operative Banks or a Service Co-operative Bank
in the Managerial Cadre or Specialization in C-
operation/Co-operative Management, Management,
Agriculture, Economics, Commerce, Public Finance, Law,
Rural Development and Information Technology as
members of the Committee of such society.
Provided that the number of such co-opted members
shall not exceed two in addition to maximum limit specified
in sub-section (1A):
Provided further that such co-opted members shall
not have the right to vote in any election of the co-
operative society in their capacity as such member and is
not eligible to be elected as office bearers of the board;
Provided also that such co-opted members of a co-
operative society shall also be members of the board and
such members shall be excluded for the purpose of
counting the total number of directors specified in
subsection (1A):
Provided also that if the Committee does not co-opt
the persons as specified within a period of six months from
the date on which the Committee is constituted, the
Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, with due
notice as may be prescribed shall make such nominations
as specified in the sub-section."
15. The procedure for removing the President, the Vice
President, the Treasurer or any other officer of the committee from
2025:KER:92768
&
its office is provided in Rule 43-A of the Rules by way of a no-
confidence motion. Rule 43-A of the Rules reads thus:
"43-A. Removal of President, Vice-President etc. by no-
confidence motion.-A committee shall remove the
President or the Vice-President or the Treasurer or any
other officer of the committee from his office by a no-
confidence motion in the following manner, namely:-
(i) A notice of intention to move a no-confidence motion
signed by such number of members as shall constitute not
less than one third of the total strength of the committee,
together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be
moved shall be delivered to the Registrar, in person, by any
two members signing the notice.
(ii) Any officer duly authorised by the Registrar concerned
in this behalf, shall arrange for the consideration of the
motion in a meeting of the committee to be held at the office
of the society on a date appointed by him, which shall not be
later than thirty days from the date on which the copy of the
motion referred to in clause (i) was delivered to the
Registrar. The said officer shall give to the members, not
less than fifteen clear days of notice of such meeting and of
the time appointed therefore.
(iii) The officer authorised under clause (ii) shall preside
over the meeting convened under this rule.
(iv) A meeting convened for the purpose of considering a
motion under this rule shall not for any reason, be
adjourned.
(v) No meeting under this rule shall be held, if at the time
appointed under the foregoing provisions or, within half an
hour from such time, such number of members as shall
constitute one half of the total strength of the committee
2025:KER:92768
&
are not present.
(vi) As soon as the meeting convened has commenced, the
officer presiding at the meeting shall read to it the motion
for the consideration of which it has been convened and
declare the motion to be open for debate.
(vii) No debate of any motion under this rule shall be
adjourned.
(viii) The officer presiding over the meeting shall neither
speak on the merits of the motion nor be entitled to vote
thereon but shall regulate the proceedings of the meeting.
(ix) A copy of the minutes of the meeting showing the result
of the voting, together with a copy of the motion shall, on
termination of the meeting, be forwarded to the Registrar
forthwith by the presiding officer of the meeting.
(x) If the motion is carried with the support of the majority
of the members of the committee and if the President or the
Vice-President or the Treasurer or any Officer of the
committee, as the case may be, does not resign his office
within two days after passing of the motion he shall cease
to hold the office of the committee of the society forthwith.
(xi) If no meeting could be held for want of quorum as
required under clause (v), or if the motion is not carried by
such a majority as required under clause (x), no notice of
any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence on
the same President, Vice-President, the Treasurer or any
officer of the committee, shall be allowed within a period of
six months from the date of the meeting.
(xii) No notice of motion under this rule shall be allowed
within six months from the date of assumption of office by
the President or the Vice-President or the Treasurer or any
officer of the committee."
2025:KER:92768
&
16. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners heavily
relied on Om Narain Agarwal (supra) to contend that the pleasure
doctrine is applicable for the removal of a member co-opted under
Section 28(1G) of the Act. In Om Narain Agarwal, the Supreme
Court was considering the scope of Section 9 of the United
Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916, which provided for the
nomination of a member of the Municipal Board by the Government
in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the United Provinces Municipalities
Act, Section 9, originally, dealt with the normal composition of the
board. An amendment was incorporated as the 'fourth proviso' to
Section 9 by Ordinance 2 of 1990 promulgated on February 15, 1990.
As per the amended proviso, a member nominated under Section 9,
whether before or after February 15, 1990 shall hold office during
the pleasure of the State Government, but not beyond the term of
the board. Interpreting the scope of the fourth proviso to Section 9
of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, the Apex Court held that
in respect of a nominated member, power of curtailment of term is
2025:KER:92768
&
with the Government and such a member can hold office only
during the pleasure of the Government.
17. The 'pleasure doctrine' is not applicable to the present
facts, as the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or Rules do not
provide such a course. Moreover, by way of SRO 1185/2003, Rule
43-A was incorporated providing a specific provision for removal of
a member of the committee by way of a no-confidence motion. The
ratio in Om Narain Agarwal is clearly distinguishable on facts.
18. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
relying on Rule 43-A, submitted that when a statutory authority is
required to do a thing in a particular manner, it is to be done in that
way. The learned Senior Government Pleader also highlighted the
mandate to be followed under Rule 43-A of the Rules.
19. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2,
relying on Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.,
[(2003) 2 SCC 111], Raj Soni v. Air Officer Incharge Admn., [(1990) 3
SCC 261] and State of Haryana v. Raghubir Dayal [(1995) 1 SCC 133],
2025:KER:92768
&
submitted that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing
in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or
not at all. The State and other authorities while acting under a
particular statute are only creatures of such statute and they must
act within the four corners thereof, the learned counsel added.
20. Rule 43-A of the Rules prescribes, the only manner in
which a member of the committee of a society may be removed.
The petitioner-society should not have removed respondent No.2
from the committee without adhering to the mandatory procedures.
21. Yet another aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 is that the decision to remove respondent No.2
from office was taken behind his back. It is submitted that the
subject 'removal of respondent No.2 from his office' was not an
agenda in the proposed meeting. The learned counsel relied on
Exhibit R2(d) notice (Ext.P6 in W.P(C) No.46208/2024) of the
managing committee. In the meeting held on 10.10.2024, 'removal of
respondent No.2' was not in the agenda.
2025:KER:92768
&
22. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Agenda No.6,
namely 'any other matter permitted by the President', enabled the
President to bring up any items for discussion.
23. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned
Senior Government Pleader submitted that removal of a member of
a committee cannot be treated as an item, which could be taken
without an agenda and that only very urgent matters requiring
emergent consideration could be taken up under the head 'any
other matter'. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 further
submitted that the committee had not even cited the very reason
for the removal of respondent No.2 in the resolution.
24. I find force in the argument raised by the learned counsel
for respondent No.2 and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
25. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 further
submitted that Ext.P11 report of the Assistant Registrar (General),
Thalassery, based on which Ext.P14 order of the Registrar
rescinding the decision of the Committee was issued, has not been
2025:KER:92768
&
challenged, and therefore the petitioners' challenge on Exhibit P14
will not stand. The learned counsel relied on Edukanti Kistamma
(supra) to support his contention. In Edukanti Kistamma, the Apex
Court held that a challenge to consequential order, without
challenging the basic order/statutory provision on the basis of
which the order has been passed, cannot be entertained.
26. I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned
counsel for respondent No.2, as Exhibit P11 is only a report, and the
statutory authority (respondent No.1) considered Exhibit P11 along
with other materials and passed Exhibit P14 order. I am of the view
that even without specifically challenging Exhibit P11, the challenge
to Exhibit P14 order will stand, as Exhibit P11 is not an 'order', but
merely a report of a lower authority for arriving at conclusions in
Exhibit P14.
27. The learned Senior Counsel, relying on Aji v. State of
Kerala (1995 KHC 59), submitted that the power of the Registrar to
supervise the working of the society under Section 66(1)(a) of the
2025:KER:92768
&
Act cannot be exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The
learned Senior Counsel submitted that the general body of the
society has its own autonomy and supreme power. The Senior
Counsel relied on paragraph 20 of the judgment of this Court in Aji
v. State of Kerala (FB), which reads thus:
"20. We make it clear that though S.66(1)(a) gives the power
enabling the Registrar to supervise the working of the
society he cannot act in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
He should not forget the importance of the fact that the
society has its own autonomy and the supreme power is
vested with the General Body. In other words, on flimsy
reasons or on extraneous considerations the Registrar
should not misuse the powers under S.66(1)(a). That power
should be exercised with due caution and circumspection
and only in cases where it is really called for."
28. The statutory provision considered by the Full Bench is
the power of the Registrar to supervise the working of the society.
The Full Bench took note of the principle that the autonomy and
supreme power is vested with the general body.
29. The facts under consideration in the present case are
different. In the present case, the Registrar was acting under Rule
176 of the Rules and exercising the power to rescind the resolution
2025:KER:92768
&
of a society.
30. A Division Bench of this Court in Sumitha Mathew (supra)
after referring to Aji v. State of Kerala held thus:
"12. The Full Bench of this Court in the decision in Aji v. State
of Kerala, 1995 (1) KLT 363 has held, in paragraph no.6 thereof,
that the State Government has no power under any of the
provisions of the KCS Act or the KCS Rules to interfere with
the selection process of a Co - operative Society, as there is
no provision in those Rules which directly authorizes the
Government to interfere with the selection process of the
Society. However, the Full Bench has held, in paragraph no.11
thereof, that it is not possible to hold that the Registrar's
power is limited to supervision of financial dealings of a
Society. Further that, R.176 clothes the Registrar with the
power to rescind any resolution of any meeting or any Society
or of the Committee of any Society, if it appears to him that
such a resolution is ultra vires of the objects of the Society,
or is against the provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye - laws or of
any direction or instructions issued by the Department, or
calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the
society or is contrary to the better interest of the Society.
Thus, the position is abundantly clear that the Registrar is not
a mere passive spectator against an erring society and he is
vested with adequate power to rescind resolutions whenever
situations demand and the contention, that the Registrar's
power is limited only to supervise the financial dealings of the
society, is not tenable. It may be pertinent to refer to
paragraphs 6 & 11 of the abovesaid decision of the Full Bench
of this Court in Aji's case supra, which read as follows:
"6. At the outset, it has to be stated that the Government has
no power under any provisions of the Act or rules to interfere
with the selection process of a cooperative society. As there
is no provision under the Act or Rules which authorises the
Government to interfere with the selection process of the
society, Ext. P - 5 order cannot be sustained. In Trivandrum
2025:KER:92768
&
District Co - operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1992 (1)
KLT 381 a Division Bench of this Court held that Government
has no such power. In Kottayam Co - operative Bank Ltd. v.
State of Kerala, 1988 (1) KLT 827 it was held that there cannot
be an assumption that the Government has got the powers to
intervene in the day - to - day administration of the co -
operative society. In the said decision it was made clear that
Government cannot restrain bank from conducting interview
for appointment of clerks. With regard to the power of the
Court in Government in issuing Ext. P - 5 order, counsel on
both sides conceded the position that it cannot do it.
11. It is not possible to hold that Registrar's power is limited to
the supervision of the financial dealings of the society. R.176
clothes the Registrar with the power to rescind any
resolution of any meeting of any society or of the committee
of any society, if it appears to him that such resolution is ultra
- vires of the objects of the society, or is against the
provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye - laws or of any direction or
instructions issued by the Department, or calculated to
disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is
contrary to the better interest of the society. Thus the position
is abundantly clear that the Registrar is not a mere passive
spectator against an erring society. Registrar is vested with
adequate power to rescind resolutions whenever situations
demand. Contention that Registrar's power is limited only to
supervise the financial dealings of the society is not tenable
with adequate power to rescind resolutions whenever
situations demand. Contention that Registrar's power is
limited only to supervise the financial dealings of the society
is not tenable."
31. As per Rule 176 of the Rules, the Registrar is competent to
rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or the
committee, if it appears to him that such resolution is ultra vires of
the objects of the society, or is against the provisions of the Act,
2025:KER:92768
&
Rules, Bye-laws or any direction or instructions issued by the
Department, or calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly
working of the society or is contrary to the better interest of the
society.
32. The petitioner, the Managing Committee of the Society,
was acting against the Act and Rules while passing the resolution
to remove respondent No.2 without resorting to Rule 43-A of the
Rules. The act of the Registrar while passing Exhibit P14
resolution was within the limits of his statutory power.
33. The learned Senior Counsel further relied on Joseph
Mathew v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC 53). In Joseph Mathew, this
Court was considering a service-related matter. This Court held
that any power bestowed upon the Registrar under Rule 176 of the
Rules does not extend to employment-related disputes once they
fall within the statutory framework of Section 69 of the Act. In
Joseph Mathew, this Court held that the Registrar, under Rule 176
of the Rules, is not deciding a lis and can only see from the face of
2025:KER:92768
&
the record whether there is any statutory violation and nothing
beyond that. The Court held that if any decision affecting the rights
of the parties on a service dispute occurs, the Registrar has to keep
his hands off. The facts considered in Joseph Mathew are
different from the subject matter under consideration.
34. In view of the provision for no-confidence motion under
Rule 43-A being the only mode by which a member could be
removed from the managing committee, Exhibit P14 decision
rescinding the resolution of the petitioner-committee to remove
respondent No.2 from the managing committee, is within the
powers of the Registrar. The Registrar, being satisfied that there
were statutory and procedural violations, exercised his jurisdiction
under Rule 176 of the Rules, which requires no interference.
35. The resultant conclusion is that the co-option of petitioner
No.2 in W.P(C) No.24928/2025 (respondent No.5 in W.P(C)
No.46208/2024) as per Exhibit P3 resolution will not survive.
Respondent No.2 in W.P(C) No.24928/2025 (petitioner in W.P(C)
2025:KER:92768
&
No.46208/2024) will continue to be a member of the managing
committee consequent to the decision in Ext.P14.
The Writ Petitions stand disposed of as above.
Sd/-
K.BABU,
JUDGE
KAS
2025:KER:92768
&
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 46208 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
14.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL
MANAGER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
NOTICE DATED 05.10.2024.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
25.10.2024 SENT TO THE
PRESIDENT/GENERAL MANAGER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DATED 22.10.2024.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
13.11.24 IN WPC NO.39835/24 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
NOTICE DATED 25.11.2024 ALONG WITH
APPROXIMATE TYPED COPY.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTORS DATED
29.11.2024 TO THE PRESIDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
KANNUR DISTRICT JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DATED 05.12.2024.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.2204/2024/VCG/KDIS DATED 13.01.2025
ISSUED BY JOINT REGISTRAR OF KANNUR CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.01.2025 IN W.P(C) NO.3504/2025
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA.
2025:KER:92768
&
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.2204/2024/VCG
DATED 04.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.2204/2024/VCG/KDIS DATED 13.06.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
2025:KER:92768
&
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 24928 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE BYLAW OF THE 1ST PETITIONER SOCIETY
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.14 DATED
10.10.2024 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MEETING OF THE SOCIETY
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.8 DATED
29.11.2024 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE SOCIETY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.
GRGKNR/2204-VCG DATED 24.12.2024 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.01.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
2204/2024/VCG/K.DIS. DATED 13.01.2025
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.01.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO. 3504 OF 2025
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.
2204/2024/VCG DATED 04.02.2025 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.02.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE 1ST PETITIONER SOCIETY
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
20.12.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR, THALASSERY
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 1ST
2025:KER:92768
&
PETITIONER SOCIETY
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE EXHIBIT
P12 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2025
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
NOTICE DATED 05.10.2024
Exhibit R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 176 PETITION
SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.10.2024.
Exhibit R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
13.11.2024 IN W.P(C)NO.39835/2024
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA.
Exhibit R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
NOTICE DATED 25.11.2024 ALONG WITH
TYPED COPY.
