VASU PILLAI Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case is a member of the Nadakkal Service Cooperative Society Ltd. The said Society is affiliated to the Quilon District Cooperative Bank Ltd. The Bye laws of the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., is marked in this case as Ext. P1. Bye law No. 21 is concerned with the management of the Bank by the Board of Directors and Bye law No. 27 with the constitution of the Board of Directors. There are 11 members in the Board of Director. The Kerala State Cooperative Bank is to nominate 3 members and the remaining 8 members have to be elected by a meeting of the General Body and at such meeting one Director representing the primary societies in each taluk is to be elected. Ext. P2 is a copy of the rules for election to the Board of Directors of the Quilon District Cooperative Bank Ltd. The General Body of the members consisting of the affiliated Cooperative institutions and the individual shareholders would form a single constituency and it shall elect the required number of Directors to the Board of Directors of the Bank. The petitioner filed his nomination paper as a candidate for election to the Board of Directors representing the primary societies in Pathanapuram taluk. The nomination paper was duly accepted and the petitioner was nominated as a candidate. There was only one opposing candidate and he is the 2nd respondent in this petition. The petitioner was declared duly elected by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter the 2nd respondent filed a petition before the 1st respondent, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala, under S.60 of the Cooperative Societies Act for setting aside the election of the petitioner and for a declaration that the 2nd respondent was duly elected. The 1st respondent passed Ext. P9 order setting aside the election of the petitioner and declaring the 2nd respondent as duly elected. The petitioner questions the validity of this order.

(2.) The main grounds alleged by the petitioner for impeaching Ext. P9 order were, (1) that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the 2nd respondent for setting aside the election of the petitioner and for declaring the 2nd respondent as duly elected, as under S.60 of the Cooperative Societies Act, the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent was limited to disputes touching the business of the society, and that this was not a matter touching the business of the society, and (2) that the finding of the 1st respondent that the petitioner could not represent the primary societies in the Taluk of Pathanapuram is wrong.

(3.) As regards the first contention, petitioners counsel referred me to the ruling reported in Gokul Prasad v. Laxmansingh (AIR 1962 MP 265), and submitted that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the question related to the election to the Board of Directors of the District Cooperative Bank, and as this is not a matter touching the business of a society. AIR 1962 MP 262 no doubt takes the view that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has no jurisdiction to decide a dispute as regards the validity of an election of a chairman of the Board of Directors of a Cooperative Bank. But the Madras High Court in Madhava Rao v. Surya Rao ( AIR 1954 Mad. 103 ) has taken a contrary view, holding that the jurisdiction of the Registrar under S.60 of the Cooperative Societies Act would extend to the resolution of a dispute relating to the election of the Directors of a Cooperative Bank registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. In Lakshmiah v. S.P.T.C.M. Society Ltd. ( AIR 1962 Mad. 169 ) Rajamannar, C.J., observed: