RAVI Vs. KOTTAYAM CO OP URBAN BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kottayam Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. the respondent No.1 herein is currently under the control of the Administrator, the respondent No.2 to this petition. Elections to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.1 society are scheduled to be held on 7-2-1993. The respondent No.3 to this petition is the Returning Officer. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kottayam is respondent No.4 to this petition.

(2.) The petitioner filed his nomination before 14-1-1993 which was the time stipulated by the Returning Officer. On 15-1-1993 at the time of scrutiny it was found that the petitioner as a guarantor had not discharged the debt of the principal debtor. Mean while on 14-1-1993 the petitioner claims to have paid off the debt of Rs.465/- owed by his principal debtor to the respondent No.1 Bank. A copy of the receipt (Ext. P1 to the petition) was produced before the Returning Officer on 15-1-1993. The Returning Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a defaulter and therefore ineligible under S.28(1) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules and rejected the nomination paper.

(3.) S.28 of the Act has obviously no application because the nomination has not been rejected on any of the grounds stated in sub-section (2) of S.28. R.44 has the marginal note "disqualification of membership of committee." Sub-r.(1) of R.44 enacts that no member of the society shall be eligible for being elected or appointed as a member of the committee of the society if he has incurred any of the disqualifications set out in clause (a) to (k) of that sub-rule. It is sub-rule (1) of R.44 that would govern the present case because the challenge to the nomination has arisen at the stage of determination of eligibility for being elected. Contrast this with sub-r.(2) of R.44 which enacts that "a member of the committee shall cease to hold his office as such" if he incurs any of the disqualifications set cut in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of that sub-rule. Sub-r.(2) of R.44 therefore applies after the elections to the committee. The proviso to clause (a) of sub-r.(2) of R.44 lays down that the disqualification under sub clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-r.(1) shall be deemed to be accrued only after expiry of a period of one month from the date of receipt by the member concerned of a notice from the society demanding him to clear off the defaulted amount. In other words, the disqualification arising out of a default to pay the debt cannot arise unless the member concerned has failed to pay the debt inspite of a month's notice. As held in O.P.116101 of 1992 ( 1993 (1) KLT 218 ), by my learned brother Pareed Pillay, J. the proviso has ho application to a case where a member seeks election to the managing committee. Therefore one thing is clear. The petitioner's case undoubtedly falls within clause (c) of sub-r.(1) of R.44 and not under sub-r.(2) of R.44 of the Act.