(1.) The issue involved in both these writ petitions are intrinsically connected and hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21721 of 2020 are members of the 3rd respondent Society. The 3rd respondent Society has preferred W.P.(C)No.16452 of 2021. Parties are referred to in accordance with their status in W.P.(C)No.21721 of 2020. The 3rd respondent Society is engaged in Dairy Development and was registered in the year 1991. The area of operation of the Society is Ward Nos.6 to 9 of Puthussery Panchayat in Palakkad District. The petitioners submit that the Society is running on profit for the last more than six years and that there are more than 400 milk producers. According to the petitioners, the President of the Society took advantage of the successful functioning of the Society and involved in committing acts of misappropriation and diversion of funds, regarding which several complaints have been preferred. Protesting the above said acts, six members of the Managing Committee resigned, which resulted in the appointment of an Administrative Committee for a period of six months. Based on orders issued by this Court in W.P. (C)No.8983 of 2021, elections were held, and the present Managing Committee headed by the very same President took charge. It is submitted that one of the members Sri S.Ramesan has filed arbitration case under Ss. 69 and 70A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, seeking to set aside the election, and the same is pending consideration. The petitioners submit that the President of the new Managing Committee started harassing the petitioners and other members who had worked against him in the elections. The petitioners state that they were not permitted to supply milk, and, on several occasions, they had to throw the milk away.
(3.) The President issued notices to the petitioners and two other members under Rule 16(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) directing them to show cause why they should not be removed from the membership of the Society. The reason alleged is that they had obstructed the functioning of the Society by locking the gate and assaulting the employees and insisted on the issuance of receipt in the name of others, in respect of milk supplied by them. Subsequently, a notice dtd. 7/1/2020 was published stating that the petitioners and two other members have been removed from the membership of the Society under Rule 16(3) of the Rules. W.P.(C)No.1571 of 2020 was preferred by the petitioners and two other members and by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the complaint raised by the petitioners against the action of the Society, after hearing the petitioners and the Society. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P5 order dtd. 19/3/2020 cancelled the decision dtd. 4/1/2020 of the Managing Committee of the Society, expelling the petitioners and two other members from the membership of the Society. Even though in Ext.P5 order the decision to remove the petitioners from the membership had been set aside, the petitioners submit that they were not permitted to supply milk.