(1.) THE petitioners, the Board of Directors of the Oachira Service Co -operative Bank Ltd., Oachira and one of the members of the Board of Directors are the petitioners herein. They have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 proceedings of the first respondent by which a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors for conduct of an election on 21.7.2013 has been rejected.
(2.) THE present Board of Directors (the 'Board' for short) had assumed office on 28.7.2013. Their term of office was due to expire on 26.7.2013. Therefore, on 15.5.2013 a resolution was adopted by the Board, resolving to hold the election on 21.7.2013. The said resolution along with its covering letter, produced as Ext.P1 was forwarded to the first respondent through the third respondent. Since it was obligatory on the part of the first respondent to hold the election as proposed, the petitioners expected the resolution to be accepted. However, by Ext.P2 the resolution has been rejected by the first respondent. The reason stated in Ext.P2 is that by its judgment in WP(C) 12693/2013 this Court had directed the Joint Registrar to consider the complaints made by additional respondents 4 and 5 within a period of two months. Since the complaints alleged that ineligible persons and persons who had not attained 18 years of age had been enrolled as members by the Board, the voters list could be finalised only upon final disposal of the said complaints. The complaints were not finally disposed of at the time of issuing Ext.P2 proceedings for the reason that as per the time limit stipulated, time was available up to 29.7.2013. Therefore, it is stated in Ext.P2 that conduct of an election without finding out whether ineligible members have been admitted to the membership of the society is impermissible. It was for the said reason that the resolution has been rejected.
(3.) ACCORDING to Adv. P.C. Sasidharan who appears for the petitioners, the power to decide complaints regarding eligibility of persons who have been enrolled as members in the society is conferred on the Board. No complaint against any person is pending before the Board. The complaints made to the second respondent alleging that some of the members are ineligible to become members of the society are only mischievous and calculated to stall the election process. The consequence would be that, the society would be denied the benefit of an elected Board for an indefinitely long period of time. For the said reason, in a similar writ petition this Court had by Ext.P3 judgment directed the elected committee to consider the complaints. The Board has completed all the statutory formalities necessary for the conduct of an election. The entire attempt is to sabotage the election process and to bring the society under the control of an Administrator or Administrative Committee. For the above reasons it is contended that, it is necessary to have an election conducted at the earliest, after quashing Ext.P2.