CHERIAN K ANTHRAYOSE Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. M.K. Damodaran on behalf of the petitioner, Sri.P.V. Baby on behalf of the parties who object to the general body meeting being held in three different places simultaneously, Sri.M.P. Abraham on behalf of the second respondent and the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of the first respondent.

(2.) The prayer in the Original Petition is for the issue of a direction to the first respondent to appoint a Returning Officer for the conduct of election to the 2nd respondent/bank on 26-9-1993. The original resolution had been passed proposing to hold the general body meeting in three different centres, apparently to make it more convenient to the members from each area to exercise their franchise in centres that are nearer to their locality. This was being objected to on the ground that a general body meeting could be held only in one place and could not be split up as envisaged by the original resolution passed by the managing committee. It appears that the managing committee passed a resolution to hold the meeting at three different centres simultaneously in view of the fact that it had been done so earlier on the footing that since it was an election it could be arranged in three different centres where the members could more effectively exercise their franchise. Whatever that be objection having been taken the managing committee of the bank has passed a resolution dated 19-8-1993 subsequent to the filing of this Original Petition resolving to hold the election meeting in the premises of the Head Office of the Bank between 8 A.M. and 5 P.M. on 26-9-1993. The said resolution has been produced along with C.M.P.No.20632 of 1993 in O.P.No. 10883 of 1993. The petitioner has also pointed out that after the passing of the resolution the same has been communicated to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ernakulam with a request to him to appoint a Returning Officer for that election. Ext. P11 is that request. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the objection regarding the holding of the election meeting in three different centres has now been accepted and a fresh resolution has been passed to hold the meeting only in one centre there is no impediment in the way of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies for appointing a Returning Officer for holding the election as requested by the managing committee of the second respondent bank. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that the Returning Officer could not be appointed in view of the doubt regarding the legal position as to whether the meeting could be held simultaneously in three different centres. According to the learned Govt. Pleader now that a fresh resolution has been passed to hold the meeting in one centre there cannot be any objection on that score for appointing a Returning Officer. But the learned Govt. Pleader submits that the fresh resolution Ext. P10 is not in accordance with R.35(1) of the Cooperative Societies Rules and that there is no sufficient time for completing the formalities as envisaged by that Rule. It is also pointed out that the existence of the gap of 60 days in between the resolution and the holding of the election has been held to be mandatory by this court (vide T.K. Sugathan and another v. Joint Registrar, 1993 (1) KLT 927 : 1993 (1) KLJ 932 ).

(3.) Sri.P.V. Baby, appearing for some of the members who are the petitioners in O.P.No.10552 of 1993 also supports the learned Govt. Pleader in the submission that there is no sufficient time to hold the election on 26-9-1993 since it is mandatory that there should be 60 days gap between the resolution and the date of polling.