KURIEN Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the President of the second respondent Kottayam District Cooperative Bank Limited. Respondents 3 to 5 are members of the Board of Directors of the Bank of whom sixth respondent is the Vice President. Petitioner was nominated by the Registrar to the Board of Directors under S.31 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, (for short 'the Act'), as per Ext. P1 dated 5-12-1986. At the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 20-3-1987 petitioner was elected President of the Bank Third respondent and others submitted representation before the first respondent, Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, alleging that the election of the petitioner is illegal. According to them, being a nominated member under bye law 26 he is not eligible to be an office bearer. They also challenged the legality of the meeting since seven days clear notice was not given to the members as required in the bye laws. The first respondent after a show cause notice considered the explanation given by the petitioner and others and purported to rescind the decision of the Board of Directors electing the petitioner as President under Ext. P5 order. The legality of this order is challenged under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Counter affidavit filed by the first respondent indicates that he passed Ext. P5 order in purported exercise of the power conferred on him under R.176 of the Cooperative Societies Rules. The rule states that notwithstanding anything contained in the bye laws of a registered society, it shall be competent for the Registrar to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or of the committee of any society, if it appears to him that such resolution is ultra vires of the objects of the society, or is against the provisions of the Act, Rules, bye laws or of any direction or instruction issued by the department, or calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is contrary to the better interest of the society. There is no dispute that the first respondent has the powers of the Registrar. That being so, under R.176 of the Rules he is competent to rescind any resolution passed by a meeting of the Board of Directors if the resolution is contrary to the bye laws or the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The stand taken in Ext. P5 is that the election of the petitioner as President is contrary to bye law No. 26(2). This bye law states that a nominated member shall not be elected President or Vice President. That being so, according to the first respondent, petitioner, who is a nominated member, cannot be elected President.

(3.) The main question which arises for consideration is whether the election of a member of the committee as President can be rescinded under R.176 of the Rules. R.176 of the Rules empowers the Registrar, inter alia, to rescind any resolution, of any committee of the society. The Board of Directors is the committee of the second respondent Bank. Petitioner would contend that proceedings of election cannot be treated as resolution and he was not elected by any resolution. His contention is rebutted by learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the third respondent.