K J PHILIP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases, the constitutional validity of Ordinance No. 62/2007, promulgated by the Governor of Kerala, is mainly challenged by the petitioners. Therefore, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) WP (C) No. 37452/2007:

(3.) The brief facts of the case are the following: The writ petitioner is the President of the Kottayam District Cooperative Bank Ltd., which is a Central Society as defined under S.2(d) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred as the 'KCS Act'). The District Cooperative Banks, including the petitioner's Bank are hereinafter mentioned for convenience as DCB. The petitioner is the delegate of Valavoor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., to the general body of the DCB. The election to the Managing Committee of the DCB was held about five years back and the present Committee assumed office on 04/05/2003. The members of the Board of Directors of the DCB were elected for a period of five years. While so, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies by Ext. P1 proceedings dated 13/12/2007, appointed the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (General), Kottayam as the Part time Administrator of the DCB, under S.33(1) of the KCS Act. The said order was passed based on the finding that in view of Ordinance No. 62/2007, some of the members of the Board of Directors ceased to be its members and the remaining members cannot constitute the quorum for the Board. The Ordinance relied on by the Registrar in Ext. P1 is Ext. P2 dated 11/12/2007. According to the petitioner, the provisions of Ext. P2 amendment are ultra vires and unconstitutional and therefore, unenforceable. As a result of the Ordinance, majority of the members of the DCB other than Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and Urban Cooperative Banks became nominal or associate members of the DCB, having no right to vote or participate in the administration of the Bank. The exclusion of societies belonging to categories other than the two categories mentioned above, is arbitrary and discriminatory. So the Ordinance is hit by the violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court in Alappuzha Dt. Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2003 (1) KLT 297 (2003 KHC 43 : AIR 2003 (NOC) Ker. 243) in support of his submissions. As per the said decision, the provisions similar to those contained in Ext. P2 Ordinance in an earlier amending Act were held to be arbitrary and unconstitutional. Therefore, the petitioner prays for declaring that Ext. P2 is unconstitutional and also for quashing Ext. P1.