unconstitutional and against the scheme under
which the election to the Managing Committee
is held and it is arbitrary and bad in law;
2025:KER:42814
(iii)(a) Issue a writ declaring that the
permission granted to the delegate from
Kattakada PCARD Bank and the delegate from
Vadakara PCARD Bank is without the sanction
of law and therefore the said vote is required to
be excluded;
(iii)(b) Issue a writ of declaring that by
allowing the nominated members in the Board
of Directors to cast vote in the no confidence
motion is contrary to the specific prohibition as
contained in Section 31(2A) and (3) of Section
31 of the KCS Act and their votes are required
to be excluded.
(iii)(c) Issue a writ declaring that the
vote cast by the three elected members in the
Board of Directors who are part of the
corporate body in favour of the no confidence
motion cannot be counted as they are disabled
from casting the vote in favour of the no
confidence motion as long as they continue as
part of the corporate body;
iv. Dispense with the filing of English
translation of vernacular documents;
v. Grant such other reliefs as this Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
2025:KER:42814
2. The writ petition is based upon certain averments
that in the past also there have been an attempt to pass no
confidence motion against the then elected and appointed
Administrative Committee of the Apex Society. There had
been series of litigations in the year 2021 and by virtue of
the aforementioned, though the elections of the Apex
Society was held in March, 2023, but the elected members
were not permitted to assume the office owing to the
litigations and it was only in September, 2023 they could
assume the office. There was again a dispute of convening
of the General Body Meeting and by virtue of the interim
order dated 03.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No.34636 of 2024,
Registrar of Co-operative Societies had been directed to
restore the administration of the elected Managing
Committee provisionally, subject to further orders of this
Court and with a further direction to convene fresh General
Body Meeting to discuss the unfinished Agenda of the last
General Body Meeting forthwith.
3. On 03.04.2025, the State Government caused an
2025:KER:42814
amendment by introducing Rule 43C in the Kerala Co-
Operative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 2025 (hereinafter
called the Amendment Rules, 2025) dealing with the
motion of no-confidence for removal of the managing
committee of the Apex Society by General Body. The said
Rule 43C reads as follows:-
"43C. Motion of no confidence for removal of
Managing Committee by General Body.- (1) A
motion expressing want of confidence in the
Managing Committee of a Society/Bank shall be
moved in accordance with the procedure laid down
herein.
(2) Written notice of intention to move any motion
referred to in sub-rule (1) signed by such number of
members of the Society/Bank shall constitute not
less than one-third of the total members together
with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be
moved shall be delivered to the Registrar, in person,
by any of the two members of the Society/Bank
signing the notice.
(3) The Registrar or any officer authorised by him
shall convene a meeting of the General Body of the
Society/Bank for the consideration of the motion, to
be held at the office of the Society/Bank at a date
and time appointed by the Registrar or any officer
authorised by him which shall not be later than thirty
2025:KER:42814
days from the date on which the notice under sub-
rule(2) is delivered to the Registrar.
(4) The Registrar or any officer authorised by him
shall cause to publish/affix a notice on the notice
board of the head office of the Society/Bank
indicating the date, time and agenda, at least fifteen
days prior to such meeting of the General Body to be
held, for the knowledge of the members of General
Body.
(5) A meeting convened under this rule shall be
presided over by the Registrar or any officer
authorised by him.
(6) A meeting convened for the purpose of
considering the motion under this rule shall not be
adjourned except for reasons beyond human control.
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 the quorum of the
General Body of the Society/Bank prescribed in the
bye- laws of the Society/Bank are not present.
(7) As soon as the meeting convened under this rule
has commenced, the officer presiding shall read at
the meeting the motion for the consideration of
which it has been convened and declared it to be
open for debate.
(8) No debate on any motion under this rule shall be
adjourned except for reasons beyond human control.
(9) A debate on any no-confidence motion shall
2025:KER:42814
automatically terminate on the expiry of three hours
from the time appointed for the commencement of
the meeting. If it is not concluded earlier and upon
the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of
such period of three hours as the case may be, the
motion shall be put to vote.
(10) The officer presiding shall not speak on the
merit/demerit of the motion, and shall not be entitled
to vote thereon.
(11) The copy of the minutes of the meeting together
with the copy of the motion and the result of the
voting therein shall forthwith, on the termination of
the meeting, be forwarded to the Registrar by the
officer presiding the meeting.
(12) If the motion is carried with the support of the
majority of the number of members of the General
Body, the Managing Committee which lost the
confidence shall cease to hold office thereafter and
shall be deemed to be vacant forthwith, and the
Registrar shall issue an order appointing an
Administrator or Administrative Committee in
accordance with the provisions of section 33 of the
Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969.
(13) If the motion is not carried by such majority as
aforesaid or the meeting cannot be held for want of
quorum, under sub-rule (6), no notice of any
subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in
the same Managing Committee shall be received until
after the expiry of six months from the date of
2025:KER:42814
meeting or the date fixed for the motion, as the case
may be."
Complete procedure has been prescribed for holding the
no-confidence motion, constitution of not less than 1/3rd of
the total members together with a copy of motion, the
manner of publication, convening of the meetings,
cessation of the appointed committee on passing of the no-
confidence motion and in case of failure of the no
confidence motion, a bar of bringing the no-confidence
motion only after the expiry of six months.
4. In the instant case, on 04.04.2025 in the
General Body Meeting of the Apex Society, the
delegatees of all the primary societies participated and
twenty nine (29) persons moved the no confidence motion
against the elected members of the Managing Committee
of the Apex Society assumed the charge in September,
2023. According to the Additional Registrar duly
authorized, issued a notice on 04.04.2025 on the
notice board and individual notices were sent on
09.04.2025 to all the members of the Apex Society, i.e.,
2025:KER:42814
the Primary Societies, to send their delegatees in the
ensuing meeting of the no-confidence motion.
5. The requirement of law for convening no
confidence motion has to be preceded by a notice of
alteast Fifteen (15) days. 15 days in the instant case,
according to the contention of the respondents, fell on
24.09.2025. On that day, not only the respondents or
delegatees of other Primary Co-operative Societies, but
also the appellant being one of the delegatees and member
of the Primary Society participated in the no-confidence
motion. The total number of members of the Primary
Societies participated in the no-confidence motion of the
Apex Society is 77. Out of that, 40 cast vote in favour of
the no-confidence motion whereas 37 against the no
confidence motion. Thus it sufficed the requirement of
1/3rd, provided in Sub Rule 2 of Rule 43C of the
Amendment Rules, 2025. Considering that aspect, the writ
petition was filed assailing the aforementioned procedure
and this Court, vide interim order permitted the holding of
2025:KER:42814
the no confidence motion, but declaration was kept in
abeyance subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Vide
the impugned order, the learned Single Bench did not
extend the interim order for keeping the no confidence
motion in abeyance, which is under challenge in this intra
court appeal.
6. Mr.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Ms.Kavya Varma, appearing on behalf of the
appellant submitted that for a particular purpose there
cannot be a permanent delegation; in another words, once
a delegatee cannot always be a delegatee. For two Primary
Co-operative Societies, that is Kattakada and Vadakara
unauthorised persons have been permitted to participate in
the no confidence motion, therefore, in case those two
votes are not counted and actual delegatees had been
permitted to cast vote, probably the majority of no
confidence motion would have failed. Noticing all these
factors, this court had requested Adv.Thajudeen, special
Government Pleader assisting the Advocate General,
2025:KER:42814
Mr.Gopalakrishna Kurup, to produce the copies of all the
resolutions received by the Additional Registrar from all the
Primary Societies delegating the persons to caste votes.
We have seen the aforementioned compendium and as far
as Kattakada primary society is concerned, there is one
resolution of 31.08.2021 authorizing one
Sri.B.N.Syamkumar to attend the no confidence motion to
be held on 24.04.2025. However, during the course of the
hearing, we have also been handed over a resolution of
19.04.2025 passed by the Kattakada Primary Co-operative
Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, authorizing to
one Sri.Sanesh.S for attending the no confidence motion
scheduled on 24.04.2025, which was stayed by the Joint
Registrar (General) but has been under challenge in W.P.
(C) No.17813 of 2025 and is under stay. For understanding
the controversy in hand, we had also to summon the
record of W.P.(C) No.17813 of 2025. In that background,
the Registry attached the copy of the aforementioned writ
petition.
2025:KER:42814
7. Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies
Act is a complete code, providing a procedure in case the
Administrative Committee of the Society is dys-functional
or taken over by the order of the Registrar and on account
of the amendment caused therein, the Administrator
appointed is required to appoint administrative committee
of three members from the Society. The argument that the
Vadakara Society was already under the control of the
Administrative Committee and therefore, the appointment
of Purushothaman being a member of the Administrative
Committee cannot be a delagatee, thus was ineligible to
caste the vote as a delagatee.
8. Various provisions of the Act like Sections 28AB,
and 33; and Rules 44A and 46A of the Rules were referred
to point out that there has to be specific delegation
appointing a delegatee for the purpose of no confidence
motion whereas the resolution of 04.04.2024 only deals
with the member of the Society and not with regard to the
no confidence motion. It was also contended by referring to
2025:KER:42814
paragraph 52 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vipulbhai M.Chaudhary vs. Gujarat
Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and
others [(2015) 8 SCC], that in the absence of any
provision in the rules, in case any of the elected body has
assumed role, there should not be a no confidence motion
for a period of two years. The series of the litigation would
reveal that the Managing Director of the Apex Society being
an IAS Officer in collusion with other persons had been
hellbent to take over the Management of the Apex Society
by one way or the other, resulting into a litigation. Such act
would give a clear indication of usurpation of the power and
therefore, the dictum laid down in Paragraph 52 of the
Vipulbhai (supra) should be applicable as per the
provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
9. In an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal No.18983 of 2023 in Bihar Rajya Dafadar
Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) vs. State of
Bihar and others decided on 02.04.2025, it was
2025:KER:42814
contended that the constitutional courts are not only meant
to protect the fundamental rights, but also to guard against
the breach of the fundamental rights of others by the three
organs of the State. This power is a plenary power resident
in all the constitutional courts and should be in a given
case, if found that there has been an egregious violation of
a fundamental right as a result of operation of a
subordinate legislation, that is legislation 43C in the instant
case which is under challenge in the pending writ petition,
the writ courts can deliver justice by declaring the
subordinate legislation void to safeguard the rights of
others.
10. Judgment of this Court in Devasia Chacko vs.
Joint Registrar (1990 KHC 498) has been cited to
contend that in the election of the Central Society the
administrator of a member society would have no voting
right. Also, Kurien vs. Registrar of Cooperative
Societies (1996 KHC 273) to point out that if the
member of the Administrative Committee of District
2025:KER:42814
Consumer Federation when sent as a delegatee to the Apex
Federation, proviso to Rule 44 A clearly provides that
neither the administrator nor a member of Administrative
Committee can be a delegatee and therefore, the
delegation in favour of a particular person was
disqualification and the no confidence motion was liable to
be dropped/ unsustainable. The judgment in Viswanathan
vs. The Assistant Registrar (2001 KHC 696) is also
cited to contend that a delegatee sent up by an
Administrator in charge of the affairs of the primary society
shall not be eligible to vote.
11. On the other hand, Mr.Gopalakrishna Kurup,
learned Advocate General assisted by Sri.P.P.Thajudeen
and Sri.Imam Gregorious Karat learned Government
Pleaders and Sri.P.Ravindran learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the private respondents opposed the
aforementioned contentions and submitted that the
appellant cannot be permitted to challenge the passing of
2025:KER:42814
the no confidence motion after having participated in the
same. Cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold and volt-
face, being unsuccessful to reject the no confidence
motion. In view of the amendment in Section 33 of the Act,
the Administrator is vested with the power, after having
taken over the primary society, to appoint an
Administrative Committee from the members of the society
and Purushothaman was already a member of the Primary
Society, therefore, being a part of Administrative
Committee would not entail into disqualification for the
purpose of participation and casting his vote in no
confidence motion.
12. In support of the contentions, relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Subairkunju vs. Kerala Co-
operative Election Commission (2002 (3) KLT 9). Our
attention was also drawn to similar provisions of Section
28AB and Rule 44 to contend that once a delegatee always
a delegatee. The delegatees are appointed by way of an
election in a Primary Co-operative Society and have to be
2025:KER:42814
removed in the manner as provided under Section 28AB of
the Act and not in any other manner. Thus any resolution
passed appointing a different delegatee would be in
deviation of the provisions of the aforementioned act.
13. Reliance was also laid to the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in Jose vs. Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Societies (2007 (1) KLT 391) to contend
that once a delegatee always a delegatee. As far as the
contention with regard to the reliance of paragraph 52 in
the Vipulbhai M. (supra), it was contended that the
aforementioned ratio was culled out only in the absence of
provisions in the rules. However, the amended rule of
section 43C prevents the members of the Primary Societies
to bring in no confidence motion in case of its failure only
after expiry of six months. Therefore, the ratio in
paragraph 52 would not be applicable. Moreover, all these
points are pending consideration before the learned Single
Bench and cannot be decided while entertaining the intra
court appeal qua rejection stay of further actions pursuant
2025:KER:42814
to the no confidence motion. It was also pointed out that
the provisions of Section 33 would always come into force
as the previously appointed/elected administrate
committee of the Apex Society would cease to exist and
the administrator would assume the charge with the liberty
to appoint Administrative Committee consisting of a
particular number of members in tandem with the
provisions of the said Section.
14. We have heard counsel for the parties and
appraised the paper book and of the view that the
reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge for the
purpose of consideration of the interim application do not
require or warrant any interference for, the provisions of
Section 28AB and Rule 44A, which are extracted
hereinbelow, would prima facie prove that once a delegatee
always a delegatee. It will always be subject to the citation
of the judgements supra and the learned Single Bench has
not rendered finding to the merit of the matter,thus would
not prejudice the right of the party in a pending litigation.
2025:KER:42814
"28AB. Election and Removal of President, Vice
President etc..(1)A committee constituted under
sub-section (1) of section 28 shall elect from
themselves a President, a Vice-President, a
Treasurer or any other officer, by whatever name
he is designated, in the manner as may be
prescribed.
(2)A committee shall remove from office the
President, Vice President or the Treasurer or any
other officer of the committee if a motion
expressing want of confidence in any or all of them
is carried with the support of the majority of the
members of such committee in accordance with the
procedure as may be prescribed.
44A . Delegate of Societies in the committee to
another Society to be members of the
committee - The person appointed to represent a
society in any other society and vote shall be a
member of the committee of the society which he
represents:
Provided that if the affairs of the society are
managed by Administrator / Administrators /
Administrative Committee appointed under S.28 or
S.32 or S.33 of the Act, the person or persons so
appointed shall have power to nominate any
member of the society to be its delegate in the
other society and such delegate shall be eligible to
2025:KER:42814
vote and to be elected as a member of the
committee of the other society in which he sits as a
delegate if he is otherwise qualified to be a delegate
under the relevant rules."
15. As far as the resolution of the Kattakada Society
is concerned, it is evident that Sri.B.N.Syamkumar was the
member of the said society and was a delegatee appointed
to participate in the General Body Meeting. In the
General Body Meeting held on 04.04.2025 was in
agreement with the other members in the functioning of
the duly appointed Administrative Committee of the Apex
Society, resulting into actuation of the no-confidence
motion and its follow up by the Additional Registrar.
16. As far as the resolution of Vadakara Society is
concerned, Sri.Purushothaman was authorised to
participate in the General Body meeting and there is no
absolute bar for the member of the Administrative
Committee to be a delegatee as he is a member of the
society, also. The said fact is also clear from the perusal of
the provisions of Sub Rule 12 of Rule 43C.
2025:KER:42814
17. There is no quarrel to the ratio decidendi culled
out in the judgment cited supra for, the fact remains that
they have to be discussed in detail in the matter pending
before the learned Single Bench. The apprehension that the
matter being sensitive in nature requires an expeditious
disposal of the writ petition can be a certain ground for the
purpose of consideration of interim order, but we cannot be
unmindful of the fact that the request can always be made
to the Bench seized off the writ petition, to hear the matter
and decide the same.
For the reasons aforementioned, without commenting
on the merits of the matter, we do not deem it appropriate
to warrant any interference in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. Writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
bng
