R THANKAPPAN Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the notice Ext. P2 dated 29.1.1980 the 1st respondent, the Duputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Alleppey told the five petitioners and one V. K. Sukumaran that it had been noticed that they were disqualified to be members of the Board of Directors of the Kalavoor Co-operative Society Ltd. under the Co-operative Societies Rules and the bye-laws of the Society and hence ceased to be members of the Board of Directors under Rule 44 (1) (c) (i) with effect from the date of acquiring the said disqualification and that is was proposed to declare them disqualified to continue on the Committee under Rule 44(3). As part of the details of the disqualification furnished in the notice it was stated that on 15.1.1980 when the Society was inspected the 1st petitioner was found indebted to the Society as a principal debtor, the 2nd petitioner as a surety, the 3rd petitioner also as a surety, the 4th petitioner as a principal debtor and the 5th petitioner as a surety in the amounts specified. The notice called upon them to file objections, if any, to the proposal to declare them disqualified to be members of the Board of Directors. The report of the Assistant Registrar (Audit Squad) reached the 1st respondent on 17.1.1980 and this led to the notice Ext. P2. The psition states that on 25.1.1980 petitioners 1 and 4 had paid the Society all the amounts till then due, evidenced by Ext. P1 (a) and PI (b) and that the principal debtor for whom petitioner 2 was surety had also paid up all the instalments outstanding till 25.1.1980. In response to Ext. P2 the petitioners sent a reply on 8.2.1980 that they were no defaulters and were not under any disqualification. The 1st respondent did not accept this explanation and by his order Ext. P3 dated 21.7.1980 declared the petitioner disqualified to hold the office of Directors of the Society. The petitioners seek to quash Ext. P3.

(2.) The validity of Ext. P3 depends upon the correct interpretation of Rule 44(l)(c)(i) and (2) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. The relevant part of Rule 44(1 )(c) reads :

(3.) The grounds of disqualification prescribed by sub-rule (1) apply to the election or appointment of a member as a member of the committee of a Society; in other words they deal with the election or appointment of members who are subject to pre-existing disqualification. Sub-rule (2) as its opening words state, prescribe the effect of supervening disqualification or a disqualification that is discovered or noticed subsequent to the election or appointment. That is further made clear by the words "becomes disqualified" in Clause (a), "cease to be a member" in Clause (b) and "is subsequently seen to be disqualified under sub-rule (1) on the date of election itself" in Clause (c) of sub-rule (2). This is so despite the fact that Clause (2) (a) attracts the disqualifications prescribed by sub-rule (1). This aspect has been pointed out by the Bench decision in Mathew v. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, [1979 KLT 818]: "While the disqualification is provided for by Clause (1) of Rule 44 and seems to cover primarily a case of pre-existing disqualification vis-a-vis the time of the election, sub-rule (2) both on its language and its tenor is wide enough to cover a supervenient disqualification, or a disqualification that has actually emerged or is even noticed subsequent to election. This seems to be , indicated by the language of Clause (2) which speaks of a member of the committee ceasing to hold office, if he 'becomes disqualified' under sub-rule (1), etc. or ceases to be a member of the Society, or is subsequently seer, to be disqualified under sub-rule (1). These contingencies contemplated for action under sub-rule (2) appear to indicate a supervenient disqualification."