JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. P. Santhalingam for appellant, Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, Mr. P. K. Vijaya Mohan for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Asok M. Cheriyan for respondent No. 5 2. The above appeal is directed against the Judgment of K. S. Radhakrishnan, J. in O.P. 10946/98 dated 28th August 1998 dismissing the Original Petition filed by the appellant and respondents 6 to 11 in the appeal to set aside Ext. P-12 Judgment passed by the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram and to declare that the said Judgment had been passed in violation of R.100 of the Cooperative Societies Rules and for other incidental reliefs. 3. The matter arises under a very short compass. The question that arises for consideration in the Original Petition and appeal is as to whether the rejection of the appeal under Ext. P-12 Judgment for not curing the defects pointed out by the Tribunal is correct or not. 4. The Election of the Managing Committee of the Bank was held on 30th June 1996 and the elected committee has assumed charge on 1st July 1996. Aggrieved by the election results certain persons preferred an arbitration case before the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Palakkad by way of an election petition. By order dated 9th June 1997 the Arbitrator has decided to set aside the election which was held on 30th June 1996. On receipt of the copy of the award an Administrator was appointed to manage the affairs of the Bank. Challenging the award the elected committee members had preferred O.P. 10384/97 before this court and by Judgment dated 4th July 1997 in O.P. 10384/97 this court set aside the award dated 9th June 1997. Writ Appeals were preferred by the fourth respondent in the Original Petition and the Assistant Registrar and this court by a common Judgment dated 13th February 1998 allowed both the Writ Appeals and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. While disposing of the Writ Appeal this court was pleased to permit the respondents 1 to 7 to file the appeal before the Tribunal within two weeks from that date. It is also observed that if such an appeal is filed within the time limit the Tribunal shall dispose of the same within six weeks. While disposing of the Writ Appeal this court was pleased to permit the respondents 1 to 7 to file the appeal before the Tribunal within two weeks from that date. It is also observed that if such an appeal is filed within the time limit the Tribunal shall dispose of the same within six weeks. However a proper appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal in compliance with the provisions of the Act and Rules have not been preferred. Therefore, the Tribunal by Ext. P-12 order dated 4th June 1998 rejected the appeal petition preferred by the petitioner. It is relevant in this context to reproduce Exts. P-11 and P-12 for proper appreciation of the question involved in this case. Ext. P-11 "BEFORE THE KERALA COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM U.R.C. No. 2/1998 Appeal Petition Ambattu Gopalakrishnan and others Appellants Asst. Registrar (General)Palakkad and others Respondents Please take notice that the defects pointed out as per the notice dated 25th March 1998 in the appeal petition filed by the above appellants against the award of Special Grade Inspector, Malampuzha Unit in A.R.C. No. 1045/96 are seen rectified only partly. The certified or authenticated copy of the award appealed against, bearing court fee stamps of Rs. 1.50 as required in R.98(1)(b)(i) of Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules has not been furnished yet. The appeal petition has been again placed before the Tribunal for final orders regarding its registration on 4th June 1998 at 10.30 a.m. at District Cooperative Bank, Ernakulam as the major defect is not yet cured for sufficient cause is shown for the lapse, even at the time of hearing on 6th May 1998. Please also take notice that if you fail to appear on the above date either in person or by Pleader/agent and rectify the defects pointed out above showing sufficient cause for non-compliance of the notice dated 25th March 1998, the Tribunal may pass suitable orders regarding the registration of the appeal petition, in your absence. Given under my hand and seal of Kerala Cooperative Tribunal this 14th day of May, 1998. (By order) (Sd.) Secretary, Kerala Cooperative Tribunal. Ext. P-12 "IN THE COURT OF THE KERALA COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Present: S. Sainudeen, Kerala Cooperative Tribunal 4th day of June 1998. U.R.C. No. 2/98 Appellants: 1. Ambattu Gopalakrishnan, President, Peringode Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. No. F 1552, Peringode, Kongad, Palakkad. 2 to 7 * * * * Respondents: 1. (By order) (Sd.) Secretary, Kerala Cooperative Tribunal. Ext. P-12 "IN THE COURT OF THE KERALA COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Present: S. Sainudeen, Kerala Cooperative Tribunal 4th day of June 1998. U.R.C. No. 2/98 Appellants: 1. Ambattu Gopalakrishnan, President, Peringode Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. No. F 1552, Peringode, Kongad, Palakkad. 2 to 7 * * * * Respondents: 1. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (General), Office of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Palakkad. 2 to 7 * * * * This Appeal Petition (U.R.C.) having been finally heard on 4th June 1998, on this day the Tribunal passed the following:- JUDGMENT Heard, the defects noted by the Secretary have not been complied with in spite of opportunities given to the appellants. Hence rejected. (Declared in open court on this the 4th day of June, 1998.) (Sd.) S. Sainudeen, Kerala Cooperatives Tribunal. Challenging the above Exhibits the present Original Petition has been filed by the President of the Cooperative Bank and other office bearers. According to them Ext. P-12 order is without jurisdiction vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and is resulted in manifest violation of justice and the power vested in the third respondent Tribunal was not exercised in accordance with the principles laid down by this court in other cases. The dismissal of the appeal for not curing the defect by the Tribunal is illegal and the rejection of the appeal at the initial stage is contrary to R.100(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Cooperative Societies Rules. It is submitted that the procedure prescribed in the Rules had not been followed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal which has got power to grant further time for curing the defects has not exercised that power and therefore the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and cannot be supported either under sub-r.(3) and (6) of R.100 of Cooperative Societies Rules or under R.98(b)(i) of the Rules. Petitioners' counsel has personally appeared before the Tribunal and pointed out the fact that the certified or authenticated; copy of the order of the Arbitrator was not furnished to the petitioners. The Tribunal in fairness ought to have extended the time for compliance of the returns. Petitioners' counsel has personally appeared before the Tribunal and pointed out the fact that the certified or authenticated; copy of the order of the Arbitrator was not furnished to the petitioners. The Tribunal in fairness ought to have extended the time for compliance of the returns. Like wise the rejection for non-compliance of R.98(1)(b)(i) has no basis, since the counsel has attested the authenticated photostat copy of the order received from the Arbitrator and therefore it is submitted that the view entertained by the Tribunal that R.98(1)(b)(i) has not been complied is erroneous and unsustainable in law. Along with the Original Petition the petitioners filed Exts. P-1 to P-13, in support of their contention. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit disputing the averments made in the Original Petition. According to the second respondent the appeal filed belatedly and that too without curing the defect cannot be considered as a proper appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and therefore the Tribunal is right in rejecting the appeal petition under Ext. P-12 order dated 4th June 1998. It is further submitted that ample opportunities were given to the appellants to cure the defects, pointed out by the Tribunal as evidenced by Exts. P-9, P-10 and P-11 notice of the Tribunal but the appellants miserably failed to cure the defects and therefore the Tribunal has no other go but to dismiss the appeal and therefore the order under Ext. P-12 is perfectly valid and legal. 5. Respondents 4 and 5 have also filed counter affidavits and statements respectively opposing the claim made by the appellants. The appellant filed a reply affidavit. 6. While admitting the appeal on 12th October 1998 we directed the Cooperative Tribunal to submit the entire records to this court pertaining to U.R.C. 2/98 including the appeal memo and the endorsements written by the office and other connected papers. Accordingly the Tribunal has submitted the entire records pertaining to the above case. We have permitted the parties to the proceedings to pursue the records. We have also perused the same. As already noticed the question at issue in this case is as to whether the appeal has been filed by the appellants in compliance with R.98 (1) (b) and R.100 of the Cooperative Societies Rules. R.98(1)(b) and R.100 reads thus: "98. Form of appeals and application. We have also perused the same. As already noticed the question at issue in this case is as to whether the appeal has been filed by the appellants in compliance with R.98 (1) (b) and R.100 of the Cooperative Societies Rules. R.98(1)(b) and R.100 reads thus: "98. Form of appeals and application. (1) (a) (b) it shall be in duplicate and be accompanied by the following: (i) Two copies (one of which shall be a certified or authenticated copy of the original of the order, decision or award appealed against bearing court fee stamps of Rs. 1-50). (ii) By such number or additional copies of appeal memorandum and its enclosures as there are respondents; and (iii) Treasury receipt evidencing the payment of the fees prescribed under R.123." "100. Registration of appeals and applications.- (1) On receipt of any appeal or application, the Secretary shall endorse on it the date of its receipt. The Secretary shall as soon as possible examine: (a) Whether the person presenting it has authority to do so; (b) whether it is made within the period of limitation (if any) laid down in the Act; and (c) whether it conforms to the provisions of the Act and these rules. (2) If the Secretary is satisfied that the appeal or application is in order he shall cause the appeal or application to be registered in the appropriate register maintained under R.101. (3) If the Secretary finds, that the appeal or application presented to him does not conform to any of the provisions in the Act and these rules, he shall make a note on the appeal or application to the effect and call upon the party concerned or his agent or Pleader by a notice in Form No. 19 of Appendix II to cure the defects within a reasonable period to be specified by him or where the appeal or application has not prima facie been made within the period of limitation to show cause why it should not be rejected as time barred. The Secretary may for sufficient cause extend the period for the purpose of curing the defects or showing cause as aforesaid provided that if extension of more than 15 days is sought, the Secretary shall place the matter before the Tribunal and obtain orders on that behalf. The Secretary may for sufficient cause extend the period for the purpose of curing the defects or showing cause as aforesaid provided that if extension of more than 15 days is sought, the Secretary shall place the matter before the Tribunal and obtain orders on that behalf. (4) If the defect is cured or sufficient cause if shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary as required in the notice aforesaid the Secretary shall cause it to be registered in the appropriate register. (5) If the defect is not cured or if sufficient cause is not shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary, he shall under order of the Tribunal fix a date for hearing of which due notice in Form No. 20 Appendix II shall be given to the party concerned or his agent or Pleader. (6) On the date so fixed, the Tribunal shall hear the party of his agent or Pleader and pass suitable orders either rejecting the appeal/application, or directing it to be registered. (7) When an appeal/application has been ordered to be registered under sub-rule (6) the Secretary shall see that it is registered as soon as practicable and in any case not later than seven days from the date of the said order." 7. It is seen from the original records that the appeal was filed on 26th February 1998 and the same was registered as U.R.C. as the same was not in conformity with the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and Rules. This endorsement was made on 2nd March 1998, by the Deputy Registrar/Secretary. In the meanwhile Judgment of this court in W.A. 1534/97 and 171,1/97 dated 13th February 1998 was received on 13th March 1998 wherein the High Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal petition within six weeks from the date of filing. The appeal petition (U.R.C. 2/98) was submitted to the. Tribunal with Judgment of the High Court and the Deputy Registrar/Secretary has obtained orders to point out the defects for rectification allowing one week's time. This endorsement was made on 17th March 1998. As ordered by the Tribunal the defects were pointed out in Form 19 as per notice dated 25th March 1998 as contemplated in R.100(3) of the Rules by registered post allowing seven day's time for rectification. This endorsement was made on 17th March 1998. As ordered by the Tribunal the defects were pointed out in Form 19 as per notice dated 25th March 1998 as contemplated in R.100(3) of the Rules by registered post allowing seven day's time for rectification. As the defects pointed out were not cured nor sufficient cause was not shown for the delay even after a lapse of one month, the appeal petition was submitted to the Tribunal for fixing a date for hearing as required in R.100(5) and (6) of the Rules, before rejecting/registering the appeal. This endorsement was made by the Deputy Registrar/Secretary on 25th April 1998. 8. The case was posted for hearing on 6th May 1998 and notice in Form No. 20 issued on 27th April 1998 as required in R.100(5) of the Rules. On 6th May 1998 the appellant was not ready and hence the case was adjourned to 4th June 1998. In the meanwhile the Advocate for the appellant as per his letter dated 12th May 1998 produced a copy of the award in question. As the certified/authenticated copy of the award bearing court fee stamps worth Rs. 150 as required in R.98(1)(b)(i) of Cooperative Societies Rules was not furnished. A show cause notice was issued on 14th May 1998 to the Advocate intimating the fact of posting of U.R.C. on 4th June 1998. The notice dated 14th May 1998 has already been extracted in paragraph supra. The notice clearly states that the certified or authenticated copy of the award appealed against bearing court fee stamp of Rs. 1.50 as required ia R.98(1)(b)(i) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules has not been furnished and therefore the appeal petition has again been placed before the Tribunal for final orders regarding its registration on 4th June 1998 at 10.30 a.m. at the District Cooperative Bank, Ernakulam as the major defect is not yet cured or sufficient cause is shown for the lapse even at the time of hearing on 6th May 1998. The appellant was therefore called upon to appear on 6th May 1998 either in person or by Pleader or agent and rectify the defects pointed out showing sufficient cause for non-compliance of the notice dated 25th March 1998 failing which the Tribunal may pass suitable orders regarding registration of the appeal petition in the absence of the appellant. The appellant was therefore called upon to appear on 6th May 1998 either in person or by Pleader or agent and rectify the defects pointed out showing sufficient cause for non-compliance of the notice dated 25th March 1998 failing which the Tribunal may pass suitable orders regarding registration of the appeal petition in the absence of the appellant. Even on the adjourned date of hearing i.e. on 4th June 1,998 the defect pointed out in the show cause notice dated 14th May 1998 (Ext. P-11) was not rectified in spite of sufficient opportunities given to the appellant. Hence the Tribunal rejected the appeal petition on 4th June 1998. 9. The endorsements made by the Tribunal on various dates would clearly show that ample opportunity was given to the appellant to cure the defects and in spite of several opportunities being given, the appellant has not cared to or miserably failed to cure the defect and therefore the appeal filed by the appellant cannot be treated as an appeal filed in proper form and therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the same for not curing the defects. The Tribunal, in our opinion has rightly exercised its jurisdiction vested in it and rejected the appeal which is in compliance with the powers vested in the Tribunal. Therefore the contention on the part of the appellant that the order is without jurisdiction and vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record cannot at all be countenanced. R.98 is very clear. It says that every appeal Memorandum to the Tribunal shall be in duplicate and be accompanied by two copies, one of which shall be a certified or authenticated copy of the original of the order appealed against bearing court fee stamp of Rs. 1.50. In this case, even according to the appellant's counsel he has filed an authenticated copy of the order only. It is not his case that he has affixed the court fee stamp of Rs. 1.50 as required under R.98(1)(b)(i) of the Rules. Therefore R.98(1)(b)(i) has not been complied with and even after it being pointed out, the defects has not been cured. R.100 deals with Registration of appeals and applications. It is not his case that he has affixed the court fee stamp of Rs. 1.50 as required under R.98(1)(b)(i) of the Rules. Therefore R.98(1)(b)(i) has not been complied with and even after it being pointed out, the defects has not been cured. R.100 deals with Registration of appeals and applications. R.100(1) provides that on receipt of any appeal if the Secretary is satisfied that the appeal or application is in order he shall cause the appeal to be registered in the appropriate register maintained under R.101. Sub-rule (3) says that if the Secretary finds that the appeal or application presented to him does not conform to any of the provisions in the Act and rules he shall make a note on the appeal or application to the effect and call upon the party concerned or his agent by Pleader by a notice in Form No. 1.9 of Appendix II to cure the defect within a reasonable period specified by him or if the appeal has not been made within the period of limitation to show cause as to why the same could not be rejected as time barred. If the defect is cured or sufficient cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary, the Secretary shall cause it to be registered in the appropriate register and if the defect is not cured or sufficient cause is not shown the Secretary under order of the Tribunal shall fix a date for hearing of which due notice in Form No. 20 of Appendix II shall be given to the party concerned or his agent or Pleader and on the date so fixed the Tribunal shall hear the party or his agent or Pleader and pass suitable orders either rejecting the appeal or directing it to be registered. 10. To satisfy ourselves we have verified the original records as to whether R.98 and 100 has been complied with or not. 10. To satisfy ourselves we have verified the original records as to whether R.98 and 100 has been complied with or not. A perusal of the endorsements made by the Tribunal on various dates referred to in paragraphs supra clearly go to show that the Tribunal has meticulously followed both the rules and after giving opportunity to cure the defects and after fixing a date for hearing as required under R.100(5) and (6) of the rules before rejecting or registering the appeal, again posted the matter on 6th May 1998 after issuing notice in Form No. 20 on 27th April 1998 as required in R.100(5) of the rules. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal on its own should have extended the time for curing the defect. We are unable to accept the said contention. In spite of several opportunities being given to the appellant, the appellant did not care to cure the defects or to file a petition for extension of time to cure the defects. Even before us no such application is forthcoming to extend the time to cure the defects. Even after the notice the defect pointed out in regard to the affixture of stamp worth Rs. 1.50 on the authenticated copy of the order as required in R.98(1)(b)(i) has not been done. Therefore the Tribunal has rightly rejected the appeal on 4th June 1998 as the defect pointed out in the show cause notice dated 14th May 1998 was not rectified in spite of sufficient opportunities given to the appellant. The learned Single Judge after following the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Nandakumar v. Arbitrator 1996 (2) KLT 324 and after satisfying himself that the appellant has not rectified the defect as per the rule in question in spite of granting time, rejected the Original Petition, rightly so in our opinion. We therefore hold that the learned Judge is right in rejecting the Original Petition for the cogent and convincing reasons recorded by him. The Writ Appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs.