DEVASIA CHACKO Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Original Petitions relate to election to the board of Directors of Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd. , (for short 'the bank' ). The Bank is a central society having its members enlisted only from other co-operative societies functioning within the territorial limits of revenue district of Idukki. Each of the member societies elects a delegate to the central society. Such delegates constitute the general body of the Bank. The erstwhile Board of Directors of the Bank was removed and an administrator was appointed on 21-6-1989 , as per S. 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short'the act' ). When the administrator has initiated steps to hold elections for a new board of Directors, petitioners apprehended that such elections would be so manipulated by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Idukki at the behest of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) as to send only persons who are partisans to that political party as delegates to the central society. Misalleged that 37 co-operative societies which are member societies of the bank were brought under the control of administrators appointed by the joint registrar after removing or superseding committees of those societies.

(2.) DURING the pendency of these Original Petitions election was held to the Board of Directors of the Bank on 19-9-89 pursuant to the order passed on a Civil miscellaneous Petition. From a few member societies administrators themselves went and cast votes and from others the delegates deputed by the administrators came and voted. This Court directed the returning officers to collect the votes cast by the administrators in one ballot box and the votes cast by the delegates deputed by the administrators in a separate ballot box, and to file a report before this Court on 12-9-1990 after counting but without declaring the results. In accordance therewith, votes collected in separate ballot boxes were counted separately and a report has been filed by the returning officer. One ballot box contained votes polled by the administrators directly. Another ballot box contained votes polled by the delegates sent by the administrators. Yet another ballot box contained votes polled by the delegates sent by newly enrolled societies. A fourth ballot box contained votes polled by the delegates sent by the remaining societies. (Though a fifth ballot box was set apart for collecting votes polled by the societies under liquidation, no vote fell in that box ). The votes found in different ballot boxes were separately counted and tabulated by the returning officer and he incorporated details in his report.

(3.) AT least five administrators of the member societies have cast votes in the election. The first question is whether an administrator is entitled to vote on behalf of a member society. To answer this question a reference to S. 21 will be of help. It reads thus: "manner of exercising vote:-- (1) Every member of a society shall exercise his vote in person. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a society or corporation or a statutory or non-statutory Board, Committee or other body of persons which is a member of another society may, subject to any rules made under this Act, appoint one of its members to vote on its behalf in the affairs of that other society". An administrator is appointed either under S. 32 or S. 33 of the Act. In this case administrators were appointed for the member societies by virtue of S. 33 of the Act. The purpose of appointing administrator under that section is only "to manage the affairs of the society till a new committee enters upon office". When a contingency which is envisaged in s. 33 arises, the Registrar has the power to appoint either a new committee or he can appoint one or more administrator or administrators. S. 33 (2) reads thus: "the committee or administrator or administrators appointed under sub-section (1) shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and take all such action as may be required in the interests of the society". It is clear that the administrator is not the society but is only appointed to exercise the functions of the committee of the society or an officer of the society. S. 20 of the Act says that every member of a society shall have one vote in the affairs of the society and if the Government is a member of the society, each person nominated by the Government on the committee of the society shall have one vote except when the right to vote is to be exercised for election of office bearers of the society. In this context, a reference to r. 44a is also necessary. That rule says that the person appointed to represent a society in any other society and vote shall be a member of the committee of the society which he represents. The proviso to the said rule is not relevant to decide the present question and hence no reference need be made to the proviso at present. A survey made through the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules would show that a delegate who is a member of the society alone can vote in the election to the Committee of the central society. The administrator is not a delegate of the member society. The only role which the administrator can play is to manage the affairs of the society which a committee could have performed. The administrator can functions the place of the committee. The Act or the Rules do not envisage an administrator to go as delegate of the member society. For these reasons, I hold that the administrator of a member society has no voting right in the election of the central society.