PAVITHRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this writ petition relates to the validity of the Order Ext. P1 dated 16-10-1969 passed by the Government of Kerala whereunder respondents Nos. 4 to 7 have been nominated to the Board of Directors of the Alleppy Central Coir Marketing Cooperative Society Ltd. (respondent No. 3) and exemption is granted to them from the restrictions imposed as per S.20(b) and S.31(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in voting for election of office bearers of the Society and in taking part in the discussion of any no confidence motion or voting confidence on such motion.

(2.) The petitioner is a member of the Cooperative Society mentioned above and he is one of the persons elected to the Board of Directors at the election held on 4-10-1969. Respondents 4 and 5 have been nominated as members of the Board of Directors of the Society by the impugned order in exercise of the powers vested in Government under Clause.19 of the bye laws of the said Society. Ext. P1 also approves the proposal of the Special Officer (Coir) to appoint respondents 6 and 7 as members of the Board of Directors of the Society. The petitioner contends that the action taken by the Government in nominating respondents 4 and 5 as members of the Board is not bona fide and has been motivated by political considerations unrelated to the object of safeguarding or preserving the interests of the Society and is hence void. With respect to the appointment made by the Special Officer of respondents 6 and 7 as members of the Board of Directors of the Society the case put forward by the petitioner is that the action so taken by the Special Officer and its purported approval by the Government under Ext. P1 are ultra vires and devoid of jurisdiction since there is nothing in the Act which confers such power on the Special Officer who is the Registrar of the Society.

(3.) The petitioner contends that R.37(4) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 which empowers the Registrar to appoint, if he considers it necessary, two persons to serve on the committee of any Society in order to represent appropriate interests, is ultra vires and void since it is beyond the scope of the rule - making power conferred on the State Government by S.109 of the Act. It is urged by the petitioner that the provision contained in the impugned rule is wholly opposed to the scheme of the Act and cannot therefore be legitimately regarded as a rule framed to carry out the purposes of the Act. It is also pointed out that sub-s.(2) of S.109 contains a detailed enumeration of the various matters with respect to which the Government have been authorised to make rules and that the impugned rule will not be covered by any of the clauses (i) to (xxxviii) of the said sub-section. The last point raised by the petitioner is that in any event Government have acted completely without jurisdiction in exempting respondents 4 to 7 from the restrictions imposed by S.20(b) and S.31(3) of the Act in the matter of voting for the election of office bearers and taking part in the discussion of any no confidence motion or voting on such motion. In support of this contention the petitioner urges that S.101 of the Act which has been relied on by the Government as a source of power for granting the impugned exemption, does not empower the Government to exempt any particular individuals from the restriction imposed by a part of a Section but only warrants exemption being granted to any Society or class of Societies from any of the provisions of the Act.