ANTONY JEROME Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR CO OP SOC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Secretary of the Electricity Board Employees Cooperative Society (the Society). The petitioner was a member of the managing committee (committee for short) of the society which was elected on 11-10-1985. The term of the committee was three years, as the bye law stood then. But the general body of the society had passed a resolution Ext. P1 on 28-4-1985 to extend the term of the committee to five years. It is said that an application Ext. P2 for registering the amendment of the bye laws was sent to the second respondent Assistant Registrar on 2-5-1985, but the matter has not been dealt with or orders passed so far. In the absence of any reply to Ext. P2, the committee passed resolution on 19-6-1988 proposing to hold election to elect a new managing committee on 9-9-1988 and requesting the second respondent to appoint a returning officer for the purpose of holding the election. Since the term of the managing committee was expiring on 30-6-1988, they also made a request to the Joint Registrar to extend its term till 9-9-1988. Copies of the resolution were forwarded to the second respondent along with Ext. P1 dated 28-4-1985, but instead of acceding to the request made, the first respondent Joint Registrar appointed an Administrator for the society by his proceedings Ext. P5 dated 6-7-1988. The reasons stated was that the committee was over staying beyond its term, after 30-6-1988, and therefore, a part-time Administrator had to be appointed to manage its affairs. This proceeding Ext. P5 was passed without following the procedure prescribed in S.33 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, (the Act) as the first respondent felt "convinced" that it was not reasonably practicable to publish the notice contemplated in the section. Petitioner filed this original petition challenging Ext. P5, and obtained an interim order of stay of appointment of the Administrator. The order of stay has continued till this date and it is said that the elected committee continues to manage the affairs of the society.

(2.) There is no counter affidavit filed by any of the respondents. But, it is stated at the hearing, by the learned Government Pleader, that the second respondent has not received the application Ext. P2 for registration of the amendment to the bye laws. He also seeks to justify the appointment of the Administrator.

(3.) In the face of the denial of receipt of Ext. P2 by the respondents, it cannot be said that there is any failure on their part to consider the application for registration of amendment of the bye laws. The only question that therefore, arises for consideration is whether Ext. P5 is illegal for any reason.