IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19141 of 2010(P) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S) : --------------------- SMT.V.T.SHEENA, TERALI HOUSE, MUNDIYAD VAYAL, PANNIYANKARA, KALLAYIL P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------ 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOZHIKODE. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.C.VINCENT, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMV WP(C).No. 19141 of 2010(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. : COPY OF APPLICATIONS THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. : COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.02.2006. EXT.P3. : COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.01.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4. : COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.629/07/CO-OP. DATED 09.10.2007. EXT.P5. : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35017/2008 DATED 27.11.2008. EXT.P6. : COPY OF ORDER NO.O/889/08 DATED 14.01.2009. EXT.P7. : COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18.04.2009. EXT.P8. : COPY OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.2010. EXT.P9. : COPY OF G.O. DATED 14.08.1992. EXT.P10. : COPY OF THE BYE-LAW. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AMV P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 19141 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Chief Promoter of a proposed Vanitha Co-operative Society. She along with 28 others submitted Ext.P1 application dated 18.4.2006 before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kozhikkode to register the proposed Vanitha Co-operative Society as a co-operative society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. By Ext.P2 order dated 24.2.2006, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kozhikkode permitted the petitioner to mobilize Rs.50,000/- towards the initial share capital and to deposit the amount in the name of the Chief Promoter in the main branch of the District Co-operative Bank, Kozhikkode. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies also directed the petitioner to make necessary changes to the draft bye laws so as to make it conform to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the rules framed thereunder, the circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies from time to time and to resubmit it before 30.4.2006. The petitioner complied with the WP(C)No. 19141 of 2010 -2- said direction. Nearly one year thereafter, by Ext.P3 order passed on 18.1.2007, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kozhikkode declined to register the proposed society and rejected Ext.P1 application. The petitioner was directed to refund the capital mobilized by her to the persons from whom it was collected. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal before the the Government. By Ext.P4 order passed on 9.10.2007, the Government set aside Ext.P3 order and directed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to conduct a careful study to ensure the feasibility of the schemes of the proposed society and the possibility of its successful functioning, before granting registration. The Government held that in view of Ext.P9 Government order dated 14.8.1992 whereby proposed Vanitha Co-operative Societies were exempted from the provisions contained in clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 7 of the Act, the stand taken by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. 3. Even after Ext.P2 order, the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies did not pass revised orders in the matter. The petitioner was therefore constrained to move this Court by filing W.P.(C)No. 35017 of 2008. By Ext.P5 judgment delivered WP(C)No. 19141 of 2010 -3- on 27.11.2008 this Court directed the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies (General), Kozhikkode to pass final orders in the matter within one month from the date of receipt of a copy the judgment. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies thereafter passed Ext.P6 order dated 14.1.2009 once again rejecting the application for registration on the ground that there is no scope for a new Vanitha Co-operative Society. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before the Government. By Ext.P8 order passed on 27.2.2010, the Government rejected the appeal. Hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P6 and P8 orders and seeking a direction to the first respondent to register the proposed society. 4. The first respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 22.12.2010. In paragraph 4 thereof it is stated that though Vanitha Co-operative Societies are exempted from the purview of section 7(1) (c) of the Act, the registration sought by the petitioner was declined for the reason that formation of a new society will not do good to women in the locality which is already served by three existing societies. It is contended that the registration of yet another society will result in an unhealthy competition between the existing societies which itself are finding it difficult to survive. It is stated that in such WP(C)No. 19141 of 2010 -4- circumstances it was decided that registration need not be granted to the proposed society. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Sri.S.Nirmal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.C.Vincent, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is not in dispute that Vanitha Co-operative Societies are exempted from the purview of section 7 (1) (c) of the Act. Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act stipulates that the Registrar may register the society and its bye laws if he is satisfied that the area of operation of the proposed society and the area of operation of another society of a similar type do not overlap. In other words section 7(1) (c) of the Act is intended to ensure that more than one society is not registered within the same area of operation. The Government however thought it fit and proper that in respect of Vanitha Co-operative Societies section 7(1) (c) should not be made applicable. The Government accordingly issued Ext.P9 order dated 14.8.1992 exempting proposed Vanitha Co-operative Societies from the provisions of section 7 (1) (c) of the Act. In the explanatory note to Ext.P9 it is stated that the Government are of the opinion that there will be no harm even if two or more than two women co-operative societies are organized and allowed to function in the same area of WP(C)No. 19141 of 2010 -5- operation. It is stated that if more women co-operative societies are organized and function, women in the locality will be more benefited. 6. When the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies initially rejected the application by Ext.P3 order, he rejected it on the short ground that the area of operation of the proposed society and the area of operation of two other societies overlap. On appeal the Government held by Ext.P4 order that the stand taken by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot be sustained. However the Government directed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to conduct a careful study to ensure the feasibility of the schemes of the proposed society and the possibility of its successful functioning if registration is granted. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies however did not conduct a study. Instead he passed Ext.P6 order dated 14.1.2009 once again rejecting the application for registration of a new society on the ground that two Vanitha Co-operative Societies are already functioning in the same area of operation and therefore there is no scope for a third society. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies also held that the project report submitted by the petitioner is incapable of being implemented. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies also WP(C)No. 19141 of 2010 -6- stated besides the two Vanitha Co-operative Societies, the Kozhikkode Co-operative Urban Bank, City Service Co-operative Bank, Kozhikkode Town Service Co-operative Bank etc. are also functioning in the limits of Kozhikkode Corporation and the said societies will also cater to the needs of women residing within the area of operation of the proposed society. On appeal by the petitioner the Government held in Ext.P8 order that there is no scope for another society at Chalappuram and therefore though Vanitha Co-operative Societies are exempted from the purview of section 7(1) (c) of the Act, the order passed by the Joint Registrar cannot be set aside. The Government also incidentally noticed that though the petitioner had offered to produce a copy of the project report and the bye laws, they were not produced. 7. It is evident from a reading of the impugned orders and also the orders earlier passed by the Joint Registrar and the Government namely Exts.P3 and P4 that apart from merely stating that other co-operative societies will take care of the needs of the women residing in the area of operation of the proposed society, no other reason was stated to deny registration to the proposed society. A reading of Ext.P9 Government order discloses that the Government's policy is that section 7(1) (c) of the Act should not be made applicable to WP(C)No. 19141 of 2010 -7- Vanitha Co-operative Societies. Ext.P9 notification in fact welcomes the formation and registration of more than one Vanitha Co-operative Society in the same area of operation. The Government have in Ext.P9 noticed that women in the locality will be more benefitted in having adequate services from institutions which compete with each other. It was to achieve that object, namely the object of making available the services of more than one co-operative institution to women of the locality where the society is proposed to be established that the Government issued Ext.P9. A reading of Exts.P3 and P4 orders and the orders now impugned namely Exts.P6 and P8 establishes beyond doubt that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Government virtually ignored the very purpose for which Ext.P9 Government order was issued and invented reasons to deny registration to the society promoted by the petitioner. On going through the pleadings and after considering the submissions made at the Bar I find no justifiable reason to deny registration to the society of which the petitioner is the Chief Promoter. Apart from vaguely stating that there is no scope for another society in Chalappuram area, the Government or the Joint Registrar have not placed on record any cogent material to substantiate the said contention. The respondents WP(C)No. 19141 of 2010 -8- have also no case that the draft bye laws submitted by the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act or the rules or that the petitioner has not fulfilled the statutory requirements. Such being the situation I am of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Exts. P6 and P8 and direct the first respondent to grant registration to the society of which the petitioner is the Chief Promoter. Necessary orders in that regard shall be issued and the bye laws registered expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the first respondent. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //true copy// PA to Judge.