VELLIANKERI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a member of the Director Board of the 2nd respondent Society. An administrator was appointed in the above society on superseding the Director Board. O. P. No. 15060 of 1999 was filed challenging the supersession of the Director Board and this Court set aside the order of the first respondent and directed to conduct election to the Board of Directors. As directed by this Court, election to the Board of Directors was conducted. But on entertaining an election petition, the first respondent directed that the Board of Directors should not take charge. Against the above order of the first respondent, O. P. Nos. 5259 &1961 of 1999 were filed and as directed by this Court charge was handed over to the elected Board of Directors. Then the 3rd respondent was elected as the President of the Society. The petitioner would allege that now the meeting of the Board of Directors are not being regularly held by assigning one reason or the other. There is averment in the petition that for the last one month, no meeting of the Board of Directors is being held.

(2.) The petitioner would allege that attempts are being made to register another Cooperative Society in the area of operation of Thiruvilwamala Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Limited. All the elected Directors except the President moved a no confidence motion against the President. Ext. P1 is the no confidence motion signed by six of the Directors. Since no action was taken, Ext. P3 reminder dated 20.7.1999 was given by six Directors. The Directors also gave a letter to the first respondent requesting to convene a Board meeting to discuss the no confidence motion. Ext. P5 is copy of the letter given by the Directors to the first respondent, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. This O. P. is filed to direct respondents 1 to 3 to convene a meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss Ext. P1 resolution. The third respondent would raise the contention that the Cooperative Societies Act does not provide for moving a no confidence motion against the office bearers by the members of a committee. According to the third respondent, what is provided in S.33(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act is the passing of a no confidence motion by the general body against the committee as a whole. The third respondent would also contend that in the absence of a statutory duty on the part of respondents to convene a meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss Ext. P1 resolution, jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on S.30(4) of the Cooperative Societies Act for arguing that the Registrar or any person authorised by him may at any time summon a meeting of the committee of the society and that meeting shall be deemed to a meeting called in accordance with the bye laws of the society and shall have power to transact all business which can be transacted at a meeting of the committee under the bye laws of the society. S.31(3) of the Act says that a person nominated to the committee of an apex or a central society under sub-s.(1) shall not take part in the discussion of any no confidence motion or vote on any such motion. The argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on pointing out the above provision is that the legislative intend is not to allow moving of a no confidence motion against the President of a society which can be discussed in a meeting of the Board of Directors. The provision in S.31(3) restraining the nominated members of the committee from taking part in the discussion of any no confidence motion and also voting on any such motion would indicate that the legislature did not have the intention in enacting the law that there should not be a no confidence motion moved against the President.