VARGHESE Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of the third respondent Co-operative Bank, which is a class-1 Special Grade Society. The last election to the managing committee of the bank was held on 18/11/2013 and a committee with tenure till 17/11/2018 took charge. While so, the managing committee, in its meeting held on 29/9/2016, nominated the petitioner to the casual vacancy of a managing committee member that arose on 31/8/2016, invoking sec. 28(1)(j) read with Rule 38(5) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. The petitioner was intimated by communication dtd. 1/10/2016. However, he claims that he never took charge as the managing committee member and had never attended any managing committee meeting thereafter. While so, in relation to certain transactions entered into by the managing committee, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Registrar and a report was submitted under sec. 66 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The committee was suspended by the Assistant Registrar by order dtd. 6/10/2016 and a part-time administrator took charge on 7/10/2016. The suspension of the committee and the assumption of the charge by the Part-time administrator was the subject matter of a series of litigation.

(2.) Regarding the misconduct allegedly committed by the Managing Committee, notices were issued under sec. 32(1) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act to the petitioner and other members of managing committee to appear for a hearing and to show cause as to why the committee shall not be superseded. The petitioner appeared and raised a contention that he had not taken charge as the member of the Managing Committee and that he had not participated in any of its meetings. It was also pointed out by him that he was not a member of the managing committee, against which the report was submitted by the Assistant Registrar. He was nominated to the committee much later. According to the petitioner, even though the authority concluded the proceedings by removing the managing committee, he apprehended disqualification under sec. 32 (1) (e) of the KCS Act. While so, the committee was removed under sec. 32(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act.

(3.) Hence, claiming that the first respondent ought to have exonerated him from the charges, the petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs;