IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4449 of 2009(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. NITHYANANDA SHETTY SON OF UGGAPPA SHETTY BAGAMBILA HOUSE, P.O. KODLAMOGRU, KASARGOD DIST. 2. RAVIRAJA SHETTY D, S/O. OF DOOMAPPA SHETTY, THAMAR, KODALAMOGRU, MENJESHWAR, KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,R EP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. CO-OP DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES, KASARGOD. 3. THE RETURNING OFFICER /ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KASARGOD. 4. THE KODALAMOGARU-PATHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KODALAMOGARU, KASARGOD DIST, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PELADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.4449/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.1.2009. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).36419/08 DATED 19.12.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPESENTATION BY THE 2ND PETIIONER DATED 27.1.2009. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING OVERDUE LOANS AS ON 11.11.2008 OF THE DIRECTORS. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.4449 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner contends that the resolution, on the basis of which, the election to the committee of the 4th respondent is scheduled to be held, is one drawn up with persons who have incurred disqualification in participating as members of the committee. The plea is that a few of the sitting members of the committee which had drawn the resolution in question were in default to the society and therefore, they were disqualified. But the fact remains that they have not been declared as disqualified by the competent authority. Not only that, the question of quorum is what decides the sustainability of a resolution. Out of the 9 member committee, even if three are held to be disqualified, the quorum would still be available. That apart, while absence of quorum may be a ground for rescinding a resolution under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, it may not be appropriate for the writ court to interfere with the resolution on a ground of disqualification WPC.4449/09 Page numbers which has not been declared by the competent authority. Not only that, it would only be injustice to the 4th respondent if this Court interferes at this point of time when the polling in relation to the election in question is scheduled to be held tomorrow. That apart, the so called members, who are allegedly disqualified, are not parties to this writ petition. Hence, preserving all the rights of the petitioner to challenge the election, if so advised and if needed, in accordance with law, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.21/2.