NAVEENKUMAR R. Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in O.P.No.15697/96 have preferred this appeal against the Judgment dated 11th October,1996 passed by a learned Single Judge.By the impugned Judgment,the prayer of the petitioner to quash Ext.P1 notice issued by the first respondent directing recovery of a sum of Rs.1,43,643/ - from the petitioners which they had received as sitting fee in the capacity of the Directors of the Board,was rejected.

(2.) THE petitioners/appellants were the elected members of the Board of Directors of the Mattancherry Sarvajanik Cooperative Bank Ltd.It is contended that the sitting fee was allowed to be paid by the Cooperative Bank to the members when they attended the board meetings,and accordingly the bank paid sitting fee to all the petitioners/appellants for the period from 27th October 1986 to 31st December 1994.The first respondent herein -the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies -found that the sitting fee has been paid in the absence of any bye law of the Bank to that effect,and directed the petitioners/appellants to refund the same on the ground that the same was paid illegally.This direction,it is contended,is not warranted.Learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition in limine by holding that the petitioners were not entitled to get any sitting fee.

(3.) IT may be true that prior to October,1986 the bye laws of the bank contained a provision enabling the members of the Board to draw the sitting fee.But later the bank adopted the model bye laws.In the model bye laws,such a provision was omitted.R.6 of the Cooperative Societies Rules says that it shall be competent to the Registrar to frame bye laws for each class or classes of societies and to suggest modifications thereto from time to time.Such model bye laws shall be adopted by the Society with such modifications,if any,as may be suggested by the Society and agreed to by the Registrar.It appears that a Cooperative society or bank was not precluded from inserting any other relevant bye law by way of modification of the model bye laws.Such a bye law would of course require the approval of the Registrar.It was open to the bank to frame such a bye law and obtain the approval of the Registrar.The omission of such a bye law therefore suggests that the sitting fee which was being paid prior to October,1986 was sought:to be discontinued.In the absence of any provision in the set of later bye laws which superseded the earlier bye laws,the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioners were not entitled to draw the sitting fee after October,1986.