KUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is whether a member nominated by the Government to the Managing Committee of an Apex Society under Section 31 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (the Act for brevity), has the right to vote at the election of the Chairman. ViceChairman and the Executive Committee. The question arise out of the facts stated in the next paragraph.

(2.) The Kerala Karakarshaka Sahakarana Federation Limited (the KERAFED for brevity), the respondent No. 4 herein, is an Apex Society as defined in Section 2 (a) of the Act. The respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were nominated as members of the committee (the Board of Directors) of the KERAFED, by Government's order dated 2-2-1994, The nomination was in exercise of the Government's power under Section 31 of the Act and Rule 37 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (the Rules for short). The validity of the nominations is not disputed I The petitioners are the elected members of the Board of Directors of the KERAFED. The respondents 5 and 7 were elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively in the election held on 7-2-1994. The votes of respondents 5, 6 and 7 who are nominated and not elected members of the Board were taken into account in this election. The Board of Directors is scheduled to elect members of the Executive Committee on 28-2-1994, The petitioners who contend that the nominated members of the Board of Directors are not entitled to vote, apprehend that they will vote at this election. They seek a declaration that the election of respondents 5 and 7 as Chairman and Vice-Chairman is void and a direction that the respondents 5, 6 and 7 shall not vote at the election of the Executive Committee scheduled to be held on 28-2-1994. Although the elections are over, a decision on the question raised, affects validity of the election. Therefore I am considering the question.

(3.) To begin with, the meaning of Section 31 (3) and Rule 37 (2) may be understood ; Sub-secfion (3) of Section 31 of the Act precludes the nominated members of an Apex Society from taking part "in the discussion of any no-confidence motion or vote on any such motion." The restraint on the right 0f the nominated members of an Apex Society to vote is thus limited to vote on the no-confidence motion. The right to vote generally and on any resolution except the no-confidence motion is preserved intact. Rule 37 prescribes the procedure for appointment of Nominees and their removal from the Committee of a Society. In the case of apex society the nomination of members of the committee has to be done by the Government and in case of other societies by the Registrar. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 defines the powers of the members nominated under Section 31. Their "powers, duties, the functions and responsibilities" shall be the same as those of member duly elected under the bye-laws. Thus the nominated members have been statutorily equated with the elected members in so far as their "powers, duties, functions and responsibilities" are concerned. In Pavithran v. State of Kerala (1979 KLT 874) this Court endorsed recognition of the fact that "powers, duties, functions and responsibilties" of a nominated member, include the right to vote at the election of the office bearers of the society. Another inference that follows from these words is that there is no hierarchy between the elected members of the committee and the members nominated to the committee by the Government, in regard to their powers, duties and responsibilities.