Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 145 (KER)

Narayanan v. Trichur Dt. M. I. E. Co-op. Society

2000-03-07

S.SANKARASUBBAN

body2000
Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. The first respondent in the O.P. is the Thrissur District Mini Industrial Estate Cooperative Society Ltd., which is a society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It was registered on 3.5.1976 with the object of establishing and running of Industrial Estates for Small Scale Industries. According to petitioners. Clause 19 of the bye-law deals with the management of the Society. Clause 19 of the bye-law is as follows: "19. The Management of the Mini Estate Society shall vest in a Board of Directors consisting of 9 members to be elected as follows: - 2.9 Directors to be elected as per Rules now in force, by the member Unit holders, whose membership on the Board shall not exceed 7, one each from 7 Mini Industrial Estates in the District and one each from among women unit holders and SC unit holders including SC Shopping Complex Cum-Service Centre at Nadavaramba. 3. The Deputy Registrar of District Industries Centre shall be the representative of the Registrar of Industrial Co-operative Society to safe-guard the interest of the Government. 4. Managing Director (Ex. Officio) 5 The Chairman of the Mini Estate Society Shall always be the General Manager, District Industries Centre." Clause (5) of Clause 19 of the Bye-law states that the Chairman of the Mini Estate Society shall always be the General Manager, District Industries-Centre. As per the bye-law 9, members have to be elected to the Board of Directors of which 7 members should be from 7 Mini Industrial Estates of Thrissur District and one each from among women unit holders and Scheduled Caste Unit holders/The petitioners contend .that bye-law 19(5) cannot be in force after the amendment of S.28 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. After the amendment of S.28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, no member can be nominated to the Managing Committee by the Government or Registrar. Further as per R.43 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the President has to be elected by the elected committee members and hence Clause 19(5) is repugnant to the Rules. R.5 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules makes it clear that the bye-laws of the society shall not be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the rules. The last election to the Managing Committee of the Society was held in the year 1998 and the petitioners were elected to the Board of Directors. R.5 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules makes it clear that the bye-laws of the society shall not be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the rules. The last election to the Managing Committee of the Society was held in the year 1998 and the petitioners were elected to the Board of Directors. There were only 8 members now. The second respondent is the General Manager of the District Industries Centre. He wanted to continue as the President of the elected Board of Directors. Then the members brought to the notice of the second respondent that a Chairman has to be elected. Since the second respondent refused to acceed to the demands of the petitioners, they had elected the first petitioner as the President and second petitioner as the Vice President and gave information to the financing institutions and recorded the minutes of the meeting in the minutes book. The second respondent has issued a show cause notice to the first petitioner on 15.3.99. Similar show cause notices were issued to other members also. The petitioners submitted reply to Ext. P2 by filing Ext. P3. Similar explanations were given by other members. Now second respondent has passed Ext. P4 order superseding the Managing Committee and appointing an Administrative Committee. It is challenging Ext. P4 order that the O.P. is filed. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the second respondent. The main contention taken in the counter affidavit is that as per clause 19(5) of the bye-law, the Managing Director has to be the Chairman and so long as that bye-law is not amended, the petitioners cannot elect the new Chairman. 5. I heard the counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondents. Under R.5 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the bye-laws of a society shall not be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. R.43 deals with the election of President, Vice President and members of the Committee. Clause XI) of R.43 states that the election of President, Vice-President, Treasurer or any other officer by whatever name he is designated shall be in the manner specified in the Rule. In this context, it is also pertinent to note S.28 of the Act. R.43 deals with the election of President, Vice President and members of the Committee. Clause XI) of R.43 states that the election of President, Vice-President, Treasurer or any other officer by whatever name he is designated shall be in the manner specified in the Rule. In this context, it is also pertinent to note S.28 of the Act. S.28 of the Act states that the general body of a society shall constitute a committee in accordance with the bye-laws and entrust the management of the affairs of the society to such committee. With regard to nomination, it is stated that the Government or the Registrar may nominate all or any of the members of the first committee including the President or Chairman for a period not exceeding twelve months. Thus, according to petitioners the second respondent can only be the Chairman of the first Managing Committee. 6. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the petitioners contentions are correct. It is true that Clause 19(5) of the bye-law states that the second respondent has to be the Chairman of the Managing Committee. But this is practically against R.43 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules which says that the Chairman has to be elected. Further R.5 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules says that any bye-law of the society shall not be contrary to the provisions of the Act or Rules. In the light of the above facts, clause 5 of bye-law 19 is illegal. If that be so, the petitioners are legally correct in electing one among as the President. The supersession of order is merely on the basis of that petitioners are acting against the bye-laws is not correct. Hence I quash Ext. P4 order and declare that the Managing Committee elected in the elections of the first respondent society held in 1998 shall continue. The Administrative Committee will handover charge to the elected committee within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Original Petition is allowed.