P K SADASIVAN Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR DAIRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five petitioners are the President and four members of the third responent Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The managing committee of the society consists of nine members which assumed office on 24-6-1991 for a period of three years. The term of the committee thus expires on 23-6-1994. This writ petition has been occasioned by the order Ext. P-9 passed by the prst respondent Joint Registrar on 22-2-1994 superseding the managing committee under Section 33 of the Act. The facts are a bit tangled and it is necessary to state the same in chronolgoical order for a proper undrrstanding of the dispute between the parties. I am stating the facts as borne out by the writ petition, the counter affidavit of the first respondent as also the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent one Joy Varghese, who was also a member of the managing committee of the society and who got himself impleaded as a party to this writ petition.

(2.) The managing committee had nine members in it at its inception. One member by name C. V. Kuriakose was disqualified in the year, 1993 and three others admittedly resigned on 17-11-1993. The controversy between the parties is in relation to the alleged resignation of the second petitioner one P M. Vasudevan Nair, the petitioner alleging that he had not resigned, while respondents 1,2 and 4 contend that he has resigned on 17-11-1993. The reason for this controversy is that if he has really resigned, the number of members in the managing committee gets reduced to four on 17-11-1993 and therefore being no sufficient quorum for the meeting of the committee, the managing committee cannot function and therefore it became liable to oe superseded under Section 33. If on the other hand, the second petitioner had not resigned as contended by the petitioners, then the managing oommittee has sufficient quorum and is not liable to be superseded under Section 33 as was done by Ext. P-9.

(3.) Alleging that the second petitioner had resigned from the managing committee of the society, a printed notice appears to have been circulated in the locality about his resignation. The second petitioner thereupon issued a bit not;ce Ext. P-1 on 20-11-1993 stating that he had not resigned from the managing committee and that the notice to the contrary had been issued without his knowledge or consent. At the same time he also wrote the letter Ext. P-2 on 19-11-1993 to the first petitioner President of the managing committee affirming that he had not resigned from the managing committee. The first petitioner thereupon issued another bit notice on 24-11-1993 alleging that the second petitioner had not resigned from the managing committee and that there was no obstacle in the way of the managing committee functioning as such.