C.K. JAYASANKAR, 50 YEARS, S/O. V.K.P MENON, INDEEVARAM, KIDANGOOR P.O., KOTHAKULANGARA, ANGAMALI, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT Vs. CHALAKUDY TOWN NSS KARAYOGAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P7 order allowing IA Nos.4927/2015, 4928/2015 and 4930/2015 in O.S. No. 395/2007 of the District Court, Thrissur by the Additional District Judge under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is one of the patron members of Chalakkudy N.S.S. Educational Cultural and Charitable Society having its registered office at C.K.M.N.S.S. Campus East Chalakkudy, who is shown as first respondent and it is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. The society is conducting among other things, a prestigious CBSE School at Chalakkudy in the name and style of C.K.M.N.S.S. Senior Secondary School having more than 2000 students and it is one of the best schools in Thrissur District. Apart from conducting the school, they are providing professional courses and also running a working women's hostel in Chalakkudy. The society is administered by a managing committee which is known as Director Board as well. As per the registered byelaw, there are three types of members in the director board, namely 11 founder members and 8 patron members who are permanent members of the Director Board. There is a third category of members totalling four in number, who are being nominated by four N.S.S. Karayogams within Chalakkudy area known as Chalakkudy town N.S.S. Karayogam, West Chalakkudy N.S.S. Karayogam, Potta N.S.S. Karayogam and Chenathunadu N.S.S. Karayogam. The period of nominated directors is three years whereas the founder members and patrons are permanent members. As per the bylaw of the society, for curtailing any of the powers of the founder members, a unanimous decision of the director board is required. It is clear from the intention of the makers of the byelaw is that, the founder members form the most important and vital category of members in the director board. Originally there were only 11 founder members and 4 nominated members of the Karayogams in the director board. In 1986, the bylaw was amended and patron members were also included. As per the byelaw, the right of the patron members will be inherited by his wife or children nominated by the wife and children of the deceased patron members. There was no provision for inheriting the right to any other person apart from wife and children. There is no power vested in the patron member to nominate any other person while he was alive. Further there is no provision to inherit the right of the founder member on his death and there is no power to nominate any person as his successor by the founder member when he is alive as well. The nominated members have not contributed either physically or monitory for the formation of the society. They were included in the director board only to ensure adequate representation for the community of the founders of the society that is 'Nair Community'. There are anomalies in the byelaw of the society, patron members at present are not members of the general council of the society. So the petitioner who is a patron member along with six others who are either founder members or patron members filed Ext.P1 suit as O.P.395/2007 before the District Court, Thrissur for framing a scheme for proper administration and development of the first respondent society. The suit was filed under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a representative capacity and the same was allowed by the court below and directed to effect paper publication as per order in IA No.3329/2007. As per Ext.P2 application as I.A.3545/2007 the president and secretary of the respective four Karayogams had sought themselves to be impleaded along with some other members of the Karayogam also in their personal capacity and petitioner numbers 15 to 22 in Ext.P2 have wanted to implead themselves as the president and secretary of the respective four Karayogams and the application was allowed and those persons were impleaded as respondents 20 and 27 in the original petition. Since the four Karayogams mentioned above are not registered entities and legal persons, their office bearers were impleaded in the original petition for protecting the interest of the said Karayogam. The nominees of the four Karayogams to the Director Board of the first respondent were also impleaded in the original petition itself. Some of the respondents filed counter statement opposing the petition for framing the scheme. According to them there was no necessity to frame a scheme for the administration of the 5th respondent society.

(3.) When the case was taken up for trial, the counter petitioners who filed counter statement opposing the necessity to frame a scheme have withdrawn their contentions and they wanted the court to pass judgment on merit as it is a scheme suit and accordingly court below after considering the scope of the suit and contention of the parties passed Ext.P3 order dated 20.12.2014 and none filed any appeal to the same as well. So that has become final. The court below found that there is necessity to make necessary provisions in the byelaw by framing a scheme for better administration by providing the provision for nominating or power to inherit the right of the founder members in the director board and passed a preliminary order directing the parties to provide draft schemes for consideration. Accordingly three draft schemes were produced by different parties and the same was heard and it was posted for final hearing on that aspect. It was at that time that, respondents 1 to 4 filed the above applications to implead four Karayogams as parties to the proceedings, one of such application namely I.A.4927/2015 filed by R1 was produced as Ext.P4 and objection to the same is produced as Ext.P5. Though the petitioner filed objection to the same, the court below by Ext.P7 common order allowed the application, which is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.