BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were two cooperative banks, Menhanyam Cooperative Rural Bank, No. F. 1266 and Perambra Cooperative Urban Bank, No. F. 1411 in Kozhikode District. There was a General Body meeting of the two banks on the 20th and the 23rd September, 1958, at which a resolution was passed to amalgamate the two banks and to form Perambra Regional Cooperative Bank Ltd. This resolution was confirmed duly on the 16th February, 1959, by the shareholders of the two banks. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kozhikode registered the amalgamated bank by Ext. A on the 12th June, 1959 and directed the cancellation of the registration of the two original banks. Certain transitory by-laws had been passed, applicable to the new bank, and pursuant to by-law No. 32 thereof the Deputy Registrar made nominations for the first set of Directors to hold office for a period of two years. The Registrar thus nominated twelve members to be the first Directors, of whom respondents 2 and 3 were to be the President and the Treasurer respectively; this was by order, Ext. B, dated the 4th June, 1959. The petitioner, a member of the amalgamated Bank, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash Ext. B so far as the nominations of respondents 2 and 3 as President and Treasurer are concerned, on the ground, that they were disqualified to be so nominated, being defaulters within the meaning of Rule XXVII (1)(f) of the rules framed under the Madras Cooperative Societies Act (Act VI of 1932). It was therefore urged, that the Deputy Registrar acted without jurisdiction in nominating respondents 2 and 3 to their respective offices.

(2.) Certain preliminary objections were raised to the competency of this petition of which it is sufficient to advert to one of them only. It was held by a bench of this court in Balakrishnan v. The Director of Handlooms, 1958 KLJ 977 that the functions exercised under similar transitory by-laws are only administrative, and not judicial or quasi judicial in character. This position was not disputed before me on behalf of the petitioner, and following this which is binding on me, I hold, that the order of nomination made by the Deputy Registrar was an administrative order, which cannot be quashed by certiorari.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner, that even so it is open to this court under Article 226 to pass any other order or direction as the case may require. The case in Balakrishnan v. The Director of Handlooms has not considered this aspect, and is no authority on this point. I have considered the scope and extent of the power of this court to interfere under Article 226 with administrative orders in K. C. John v. State, 1959 KLT 1130 = 1959 KLJ 1285 and have adverted to some of the cases which have dealt with the question. It is not necessary to repeat the discussion, and it is sufficient to point out that there is jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash an administrative order in a proper case e. g. when the order is plainly without jurisdiction. I therefore hold, that an administrative order can be interferred with in a proper case.