MADHAVA DAS Vs. CO OP TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Election to Board of Directors of 4th respondent Cooperative Bank, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' was notified to be held on 25-6-1987. Notice of the election was published in two leading daily newspapers, viz. Mathrubhumi and Malayala Manorama on 1-6-1687 and 29-5-1987 respectively. Ext. P1 is a photostat copy of the notice published in Mathrubhumi daily dated 1-6-1987. Along with that notice the Returning Officer published information regarding dates fixed for various steps to be taken in the process of election. . In pursuance to the notice, election was held on 25-6-1987. Petitioners, nine in number, won the election to the Board of Directors. The result of the election was declared by the Returning Officer. Seventh respondent challenged the election under S.69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', by filing A.R.C. No. 1/87-88. The 7th respondent questioned the election on the sole ground that there was no service of notice of the general body meeting on the members, either by post or in person. In other words, his contention was that publication of notice in newspapers was not proper service of notice. Second respondent, the Arbitrator, accepted the plea raised by the 7th respondent and held that the general body was convened in violation of Clause.25 (B) of the bye laws of the Bank. Accordingly, by Ext P5 award dated 20-8-1988 the election of the petitioners to the Board Of Directors of the Bank was set aside. He directed to conduct fresh election in accordance with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioners took up the matter in appeal before the first respondent by preferring A. F. No. 89/88. The first respondent by Ext. P6 judgment dated 7-11-1988 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the award passed by the Arbitrator. Hence this Original Petition.

(2.) Immediately after Ext. P5 award was passed by the second respondent, fifth respondent was appointed Administrator of the Bank. The Administrator has been impleaded in his individual capacity as Additional 8th respondent. He assumed charge as Administrator on 22-8-1988. He filed a detailed counter affidavit raising the following contentions. The election held on 25-6-1987 was illegal on account of the violation of the mandatory provision contained in S.28(1) of the Act and the bye laws of the Bank regarding the mode of convening the general body. As no proper general body was convened on 25-6-1987 respondents 1 and 2 have rightly annulled the election. The Bank failed to issue notice to the members regarding the general body meeting. He went on to state that the previous Board of Directors did not admit members to the Bank and that he received a large number of complaints in this regard. Consequently he enrolled 6218 members during the period from 26-9-1988 to 23-12-1988. Thereafter steps were taken for electing new Board of Directors to the Bank. For the said purpose a general body meeting has been convened to be held on 26-2-1989.

(3.) After the Administrator was personally impleaded as Additional 8th respondent, he filed a separate counter affidavit justifying his action in enrolling large number of members.