PADMANABHAN PALLATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was aggrieved with the convening of election to the 5th respondent Society mainly on the ground that Societies who were not members in the District Co-operative Bank will be permitted to vote in the election. The above writ petition was filed at the time of publication of final voters list. The petitioner contended that there were only 374 primary Cooperative Societies members of the 5th respondent, as on 10.12.2007. The draft voters list produced at Ext. P5 evidently showed 427 members and the final voters list at Ext. P7 indicated 515 members eligible to vote. The specific contention with respect to the membership being restricted to 374 Societies was on the ground that notices for general body meetings were issued to only the said 374 Societies.

(2.) The learned Special Government Pleader, Co-operation, however contends that there were two deemed memberships which were taken into account in preparation of the voters list. One of these was on the strength of the amendment made as per Ext. P1. It is submitted that earlier all Societies could claim membership under the District Co-operative Banks. In the year 2009, by Act 9 of 2009, an amendment was brought in, restricting the membership in the District Cooperative Banks to Credit Societies alone. The said came into force on 11.12.2009. Subsequently by Ext. P1, Act 13 of 2012, an amendment was made by which such Societies who lost their membership by virtue of the provisions of Act 9 of 2009 were deemed to have again become members of such District Co-operative Banks. The share amounts which stood transferred to the suspense account was also deemed to be the share amount in respect to the said Society.

(3.) Further deemed memberships were also to be allowed since sub-section (2) of Section 8A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, provide for deeming a Society to be a member of the District Co-operative Bank, if an application made in that respect was un-responded for more than 60 days. With respect to the said deeming provision, there was a challenge on the ground that affiliation and membership should be considered as two different aspects which was negatived by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. 1281/2013.