VENUGOPALAN Vs. CO OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of an election held on 26-12-1983 in the Pulpally Service Cooperative Bank was decided by the Assistant Registrar on 16-8-1984. The election of the 2nd respondent therein was held as invalid. Two appeals were taken from that order to the Tribunal. One was seeking a declaration to set aside the election of the entire Board as invalid. The other was challenging the disqualification as found by the Asst. Registrar. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the finding of disqualification. It further held that the election of the entire Board was vitiated. The order of the Tribunal is in challenge in this writ petition filed by all the seven members of the Board, the first among whom is the person found to be disqualified.

(2.) By an interim order passed by Bhaskaran Nambiar J. on 18-12-1985, petitioners 2 to 7 whose election was not tainted, were permitted to continue as the members of the Managing Committee. The disability of the 1st petitioner was not lifted by the interim order.

(3.) Both the authorities have found that the 1st petitioner bad dual membership, one in the Pulpally Service Cooperative Bank and the other in the Peruvamba Service Cooperative Bank. R.27 of the Cooperative Societies Rules enjoins that such dual membership could be had only with a previous sanction in writing of the Registrar. There was no such previous sanction. According to the Tribunal, such sanction could not be even implied from the circumstances. The finding of the Tribunal is fully justified by the materials on record. An infraction of R.27 is clearly established. That being so, the individual merits and qualifications as claimed by him, cannot come to his rescue. The disqualification under the Rule renders irrelevant individual excellence as claimed by him. The reliance placed on the bye law to wriggle out of the effect of R.27 is also of no avail. No bye law can prevail against the statutory rule. Equally untenable is the contention that the nomination had not been objected to contemporaneously. The order of the Tribunal setting aside the election of the 1st petitioner is fully justified in the above circumstances.