CHERUVANNUR GRAMEENA KALIMANNU Vs. PROJECT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a Society. The term of office of the Board of Directors is for three years, as per the existing bye-laws of the Society. However, it has amended the bye-laws, extending the term of the Board of Directors from three years to five years. As per the letter dated 30/09/2006, the same had been sent to the first respondent, for approval. The counsel for the writ petitioner submits that no action had been taken on the amendment sought for and, meanwhile, the term of three years had expired. Consequently, steps have been initiated under Section 33(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The writ petitioner had approached this Court through W.P(C) No.33963/2006 and as per Exhibit P4 judgment dated 20/12/2006, I had directed the first respondent to issue notice under Rule 65(5) of the Kerala Co- operative Society Rules and dispose of the petition pending before it, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing the Society, or the person(s) who conduct the affairs of the Society. No orders are passed, submits counsel for the writ petitioner.

(2.) The writ petitioner further complaints that because of extraneous reasons, the first respondent had kept the amended bye-laws with him and, therefore, the term of office of the Board of Directors was allowed to expire. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that they had received different complaints from various persons, including written complaint from 65 members and the same have been communicated to the writ petitioner Society, as could be seen from Exhibit P10 dated 29/12/2006. It is also submitted by the counsel that as the Registrar has to be satisfied of the bona fide of the amendment sought for by the writ petitioner Society, documents have been called for. Instead of sending proper documents, the writ petitioner sent reply dated 11/01/2007, stating unnecessary matters and also threatening the first respondent.

(3.) After hearing both sides and appreciating the materials that are placed before me, I direct the first respondent to hear the writ petitioner and, if found necessary, dispose of the request for amendment of the bye-laws, taking into account other complaints, which had been allegedly filed by 65 members of the writ petitioner Society, at the earliest, in any case, within two weeks from today.