IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2775 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNNY.K.U, S/O.ULAHANNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, KARIKOMBIL HOUSE, KODANCHERY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KODANCHERRY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F 1762, P.O.KODANCHERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2775 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a member of the first respondent bank, a society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. He has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the choice of the venue for the general body meeting of the bank scheduled to be held on 31.1.2011 for the purpose of considering certain amendments proposed in the bye-laws. The main contention raised is that the managing committee has fixed the venue of the meeting as Vyapara Bhavan, Kodenchery with a view to ensure that only a limited number of members take part in the deliberations, thereby preventing the vast majority of members from attending the meeting and casting their vote. It is stated that the first respondent bank has about 10,000 members on its rolls and the place where the meeting is scheduled to be held can accommodate only a maximum of 200 persons. The petitioner concedes that pointing out these facts, he has filed Ext.P2 representation before the second respondent, but till date, orders have not been passed thereon. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to postpone the extra ordinary general body meeting of the bank to another day and to convene the meeting in a more spacious area which can accommodate majority of the W.P.(C) No.2775 of 2011 2 members of the bank. In the alternative he seeks direction to the second respondent to consider and take an expeditious decision on Ext.P2. 2. From the pleadings, it would appear that the petitioner wants the general body meeting to be held in an auditorium or hall which can accommodate majority of the members of the bank, thereby implying that the venue of the meeting should accommodate more than 5000 members. The petitioner has not been able to point out any provision in the bye laws or in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules which mandates that the general body meeting shall be held in an auditorium or hall which can accommodate as many number of persons as there are members. In the absence of any such statutory prescription in the Act and the Rules or a stipulation in that regard in the bye laws, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot step in and direct a Co-operative Society to conduct its general body meeting in an auditorium or a hall which can accommodate at least 5000 persons. Even assuming that the meeting can held in a school, no class room or auditorium in any school in the State of Kerala can accommodate 5000 persons. Further, no provision of the Kerala Co- W.P.(C) No.2775 of 2011 3 operative Societies Act which empowers the Joint Registrar to tinker with Ext.P1 notification and to direct the Bank to convene the general body meeting in a place which can accommodate majority of the members of the bank was brought to my notice. The petitioner has also not been able to show that the second respondent has a statutory or public duty to issue the directions sought in Ext.P2. In the absence of any right in the petitioner and a corresponding duty in the second respondent, this Court cannot the direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 and take an appropriate decision thereon. It is for the petitioner to participate in the meeting and to cast his vote, if a polling is held. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.