MOHANAN Vs. SULTHAN SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. (C) No. 24577 of 2013 essentially is a lament that the last frontiers which maintained a semblance of democratic functioning and good governance has been invaded by short-sighted political considerations. A Society commenced in the 1950's is said to have been administered by members who chose to hide their political identities, at least when it came to the election and administration of the Society. They too succumbed to the seducing possibilities held-forth by 'absolute power'. The petitioners are the members of the Managing Committee elected to power in 2008, the last elections. They confess to have fallen prey to that lure and brought out their political affiliations to align themselves to form a majority so as to take over the administration of the Society. The rival group is said to have relentlessly pursued their agenda to come back to power. Whether the attempt to divide the Society is in furtherance of that agenda and even then or otherwise whether it is in consonance with the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for brevity, "the Rules") and the Bye-laws of the Society is the question urged in one of the above Writ Petitions. W.P. (C) No. 28603 of 2013 seeks an expeditious conduct of election to the Society. The facts, briefly stated, are that the Board of Directors took charge in the year 2012 after a duly conducted election and the 3 petitioners along with 5 others constituted the majority group in a Board, having a total of 15 members. One member from the petitioners' group resigned, thus causing a stalemate in the administration, which was further confounded by the resignation of all the 7 members in the other group. This resulted in a lack of quorum and an Administrator was appointed in December, 2012. After a period of 6 months, an Administrative Committee, consisting of respondents 5 to 7, was appointed by the Registrar with the 5th respondent as the Convenor.

(2.) With respect to the antecedents, it is to be noticed that 2 Societies were granted registration in the Nenmeni and Noolpuzha Grama Panchayats, overlapping the area of operation of the respondent-Bank. The Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank, who were in office at that point of time, contested the registration of the two new Societies and admittedly in the year 2003 itself a resolution was placed before the general body of the respondent-Bank, to divide the Society into three, which was rejected by a vast majority. This is the agenda, which the minority group in the Board of Directors, which took charge in 2012, is alleged to have pursued, when resigning from the Board of Directors and facilitating 3 persons amongst them to be appointed as the members of the Administrative Committee.

(3.) Incidentally it is also averred by the petitioners that the challenge against the formation of the 2 new societies of Nenmeni and Noolpuzha was pursued by the erstwhile office bearers of the Society, before the various statutory authorities, and this Court. However, the Writ Petition filed before this Court against the order of the Government approving such registration was withdrawn after the present Administrative Committee came into office. This contention though accepted by respondents 5 to 7, is countered on the premise that the formation of the new societies is not a subject matter arising in the present case and if the petitioners were aggrieved by the withdrawal of the said Writ Petition, they ought to seek remedies against the same.