PRESIDENT, KOLKKALAM SERVICE Vs. MEENAKSHIKUTTY V. M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner, the President of a Cooperative Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, is against Ext. P4 order passed by the second respondent. By the said order the second respondent held that it was open to him to exercise his powers under R.176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules in the matter of disciplinary action taken against the first respondent and therefore, decided to consider the petition fixed by the first respondent under R.176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules on merits. The petitioner has also made a prayer for a declaration that R.176 cannot be invoked to rescind the decision of the Sub Committee under R.198 and the decision of the appellate authority under R.198 (4) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. Yet another contention is that there cannot be a composit petition to rescind three resolutions. Shri. P. Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends for the position that once the statute provides for a mode of disciplinary action providing also for an appeal before the appellate authority further interference by the Registrar under R.176 is not contemplated under the statute. In other words, after the statutory appeal R.176 cannot be invoked in disciplinary proceedings. It is necessary to extract R.176 in order to understand the scope of the arguments:

(2.) REGARDING the scope of R.176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules in disciplinary proceedings I do not think the matter is any more res integra. A catena of decisions have dealt with the issue. In RS. Co.op. Society v. Rugmini Amma, 1996(1) KLT 100 a Division Bench of this court held as follows:-

(3.) YET another contention is that more than one resolution cannot be looked into by the Registrar in one proceedings. As a matter of fact that aspect also is covered against the petitioner by the Full Bench decision referred to above. At Para.11 of the judgment it was held that "Registrar is vested with adequate power to rescind resolutions whenever situations demand." Even otherwise it is . a question of only substance and not form, particularly since no form as such is prescribed for invoking R.176. In a situation where a resolution of the appellate authority is interfered, necessarily many other resolutions would also have to be looked into for the proper and effective exercise of jurisdiction under R.176.