JOINT REGISTRAR Vs. CHATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Palakkad and three others are the appellants in this appeal. The Original Petition was filed by the respondents for a mandamus directing the appellants to conduct the election to the managing committee of Alathur Government Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. No. 600 on 18.6.1999 itself. The allegation was that the Returning Officer, who was appointed to conduct the election, did not take any steps to conduct the election, for the reason that certified copy of the bye laws of the society was not made available to the Returning Officer by the managing committee of the society. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Original Petition at the admission stage itself, directing the President and Secretary of the society to hand over a copy of the bye laws duly certified by them to the Returning Officer for conducting the election as expeditiously as possible. The learned Judge also further directed that the present Board of Directors may themselves be appointed as Administrative Committee till election is over. According to the appellants, the said direction was passed without ascertaining the facts from the appellants. It is also averred that the said direction is against the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder and also contrary to the dicta laid down by this Court on the point. Our attention was drawn to the following facts by the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) BY resolution No. 2 dated 12.4.1999 the Managing Committee of the society took a decision to conduct the election to the new Board of Directors on 18.6.1999 and on 16.4.1999 the 2nd appellant herein was requested to appoint a Returning Officer. Since certified copy of the bye laws of the Society was necessary for proper conduct of the election, the Managing Committee was requested to make available a copy of the same. Inspite of the request, the Managing Committee failed to furnish certified copy of the bye laws. However, the 2nd appellant, by order dated 12.5.1999, appointed the 3rd appellant as Returning Officer to conduct election to the managing committee of the Society. The Returning Officer, on the same day, requested the Secretary of the Bank to furnish a registered copy of the bye law and also a copy of the previous election notification for preparing a format of election notification for the ensuing election. It is submitted that since the Society did not furnish either a copy of the bye laws or the previous election notification, the election notification for the ensuing election could not be prepared by the 3rd appellant. Our attention was drawn to R.35(3)(b) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, which provides that the committee in office shall prepare a list of members qualified to vote at the election in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and the bye laws as stood on a date 30 days prior to the date fixed for the poll and supply the same to the Returning Officer, who shall publish copies of the list by affixing them to the notice board at the Head Office of the Society and its branches, if any, not less than fifteen days prior to the date fixed for election inviting objections, if any in the matter, within three days of publication and, after considering the objections, the Returning Officer shall publish a final list of eligible voters. It is submitted that even though the 3rd appellant was appointed on 12.5.1999 as Returning Officer, the managing committee in office did not hand over the approved preliminary voters list to him and, therefore, he requested the managing committee in writing on 13.5.1999 to make available a copy of the voters list approved by the Committee in office. Even though the Secretary of the Society received the said request on the same day itself, it is submitted that a copy of the approved voters list was handed over only on 19.5.1999 and by that time there were only hardly 29 days to complete the election procedures. Learned Government Pleader Mr. Alexander Thomas brought to our attention Circular No. CP (1) 30056/91 dated 21.8.1991 wherein it was stipulated that at least 30 live days should be there from the date of publication of the preliminary voters list and the date of election, in order to have a proper election in consonance with the democratic principles. It is submitted that the said circular was issued in accordance with the directions of this Court in O.P. No. 5248 of 1989. In the present case, since the committee in office handed over copy of the voters list only on 19.5.1999, the time frame stipulated by the above circular could not be complied with, which would vitiate the entire election process. Government Pleader further submitted that a copy of the registered bye laws was absolutely necessary in order to have a proper election, since the number of seats to which the elections are to be conducted, the vacancies set apart for women, members of scheduled castes etc. as well as the total number of vacancies can be ascertained only from the bye laws and in the absence of the bye laws and the previous election notification, it was not possible for the Returning Officer to proceed with the election process. It is submitted that these crucial aspects of the matter which cut into the root of the petitioners' case could not be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge since matter was disposed of at the admission stage itself, without calling for instructions from the appellants.

(3.) UNDER S.33 of the Act, power is given to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to appoint, after intimating the Circle Cooperative Union, a new committee consisting of not more than three members of the society; or one or more administrator or administrators, who need not be a member or members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding six months as may be specified in the order, which period may be extended from time to time at the discretion of the Registrar, for reasons recorded in writing, under the contingencies enumerated in the said Section. Mr. Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that this Court may at least consider the appointment of three members of the present committee as members of the Administrative Committee to manage the affairs of the Society till the election process is completed and the newly elected committee takes charge. Such a request at this juncture cannot be considered. This Court, in all the decisions referred to earlier, has only directed the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to appoint an Administrator or Administrators in accordance with the provisions contained in S.33 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge, in so far as it directs the present Board to be appointed as Administrative Committee till the election is over, is liable to be set aside.