IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15548 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- REVI RAJAN, H.NO.50, NEAR C.T.C.BUS STAND, MOOLAKADA, MUNNAR, IDUKKI. BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.JACOB, SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEVICOLAM TALUK PLANTATION WORKERS'S CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.NO.K.382, MUNNAR, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), DEVICOLAM, MUNNAR, IDUKKI. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), IDUKKI, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE, R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 15548 OF 2010 P ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is one of the members of the Board of Directors of the Devicolam Taluk Plantation Workers' Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.No.K 382, a society registered under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 (the 'Act' for short) and the Rules thereunder. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 as per law and till such time the implementation of the decisions taken in the meeting held on 16/5/2010 may be directed to be kept in abeyance. ii) Declare that the general body meeting convened by the first respondent as per Ext.P3 and P4 is illegal and violative of the mandatory provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. Iii) Issue such other reliefs which may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the above writ petition.” 2. According to the petitioner there was a committee meeting WPC 15548/2010 2 on 22/4/2010 that was attended by him. Subsequently, another committee meeting was held on 30/4/2010 of which, no notice was served on the petitioner. In the said meeting, a decision was taken to convene a general body meeting of the society on 16/5/2010. Pursuant to the said decision, a notification was published in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 6/5/2010. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 14/5/2010 to the Assistant Registrar alleging violation of the Act and the Rules. However, the Assistant Registrar did not take any action and therefore, the general body meeting was held on 16/5/2010. In the general body meeting it has been decided to disburse to the members, the dividend for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 as per the Audit Certificate. According to the petitioner, the dividend is to be disbursed to the members only at the time of their retirement so that they would get a lumpsum amount at the time of retirement. For the said reason, the dividend has not been disbursed for the last several years, it is alleged. In the above circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 complaint to the third respondent on 17/5/2010. This writ petition is filed alleging that his complaints Exts.P6 and P7 have not been considered by the authorities. 3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of WPC 15548/2010 3 respondents 1 and 3. According to the counter affidavit of the first respondent, notice of the meeting of 30/4/2010 was not served on the petitioner only because of the fact that he had refused to accept the notice. Therefore, it is alleged that though the petitioner was informed of the meeting, he did not attend the same. It is further submitted that the general body meeting held on 16/5/2010 was proper and regular and that the decisions taken at the said meeting are all valid. According to the first respondent, the petitioner was not in favour of disbursing the dividend to the members of the society and therefore, he wanted to stall the move some how or the other. It is for the said purpose that he has filed the present writ petition also. Since the general body has decided to disburse the dividend to the members, it is pointed out that the petitioner who represents the lone voice of dissent may not be permitted to upset the decision of the majority. 4. The third respondent in a separate counter affidavit submits that though notice of the meeting held on 30/4/2010 is not seen to have been served on the petitioner, all the other members have received notice and attended the committee meeting. Further, notice of the general body was published in the Mathrubhumi daily on 6/5/2010 and in the Dinathanti daily dated WPC 15548/2010 4 5/5/2010. The notice was displayed on the notice board of the society also. The discrepancy that has occurred in the agenda published by the society was ratified by the general body as per resolution No:3. The general body meeting resolved to disburse the dividend to the members for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Since the discrepancies alleged by the petitioner were only minor in nature, it is submitted that the general body meeting that was conducted was proper. 5. I have heard Mr. P.P.Jacob who appears for the petitioner, Adv. Joice George who appears for the first respondent and Mr. K.C.Santhosh Kumar, the learned senior Govt. Pleader. I have perused the records of the case as well as the counter affidavits of respondents 2 and 3 and have considered the rival contentions urged before me. 6. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Section 29 of the Act which provides that a general body meeting of the society shall be held once in a year for the purpose of approval of the budget with reference to the program of the activities of the society prepared by the committee for the ensuing year. By referring to Ext.P3, it is pointed out that the agenda that was published does not include presentation of the budget as an item. WPC 15548/2010 5 It is therefore submitted that the general body meeting of 16/5/2010 was not proper. It is seen that the budget was introduced in the general body and was passed on 16/5/2010. According to the counsel for the petitioner, if it had been properly notified that the budget would be introduced and passed at the general body meeting he would have attended the meeting and therefore, the omission to put him on notice regarding the said item was fatal to the regularity of the proceedings of 16/5/2010. Particular reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in N.Sudarsanan v. State of Kerala {1996(2) KLT 942}. In the said decision, it has been held that when notice is given specifying the business to be transacted no other business could be taken up. At page 947 of the judgment Shanmugam, J has summed up the position in the following words:- “In other words, notice of meetings should specify the business to be transacted. When notice is given that particular business will be transacted in a meeting, no other business can be embarked upon in that meeting unless the whole body was present and consents. It follows that the resolution passed on a subject not included in the agenda of a meeting would be good only if all the members of the committee are present at the meeting and if all of them waived the WPC 15548/2010 6 formality of notice. The Division Bench was dealing with a similar case where resolution was made on an item which was not included in the agenda. Two members of the committee who came late to the meeting after passing of the resolution objected to this stating that if they had known that the item would be taken for consideration, they would have attended the meeting in time, placed their view points and even influenced the other member to see that the resolution was not passed. In the absence of notice, they lost the above right and it is open for them to challenge the decision.” 7. The above decision would show that, whether the rule regarding issue of notice should apply with the rigidity with which it has been directed to be applied by this Court in the passage quoted above, would depend on the provisions of the constitution or the byelaws subject to which the society is functioning. Since the byelaws of the society are not before me I am not in a position to say what the mandate of the provisions of the byelaws of the first respondent is. 8. I notice that the petitioner has submitted a complaint to the second respondent on 14/5/2010. After the general body meeting the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 complaint on 17/5/2010 before the third respondent. He is seen to have filed WPC 15548/2010 7 this writ petition on 19/5/2010. The third respondent had no time to look into the complaint or to take any action thereon. Statutory authorities cannot be expected to consider and pass orders on a representation as soon as it is received. It is seen that the petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing this writ petition without even waiting to see what action would be initiated by the third respondent on his complaint. Since Ext.P7 complaint is pending before the third respondent, I do not think that it is necessary for me to consider the merits of the rival contentions that are raised before me. I also notice that the general body is the final authority that is vested with the power to decide in what manner the society's assets should be applied and how the administration of the society should be conducted. The society has decided to disburse to its members the dividend for the years 2006- 07 and 2007-08. I do not think there are any grounds to interfere with the said decision of the society. Since the entire matter is pending before the third respondent, it is sufficient that the third respondent is directed to consider this aspect also. 9. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the complaint of the petitioner contained in Ext.P7 in accordance with law and to pass WPC 15548/2010 8 appropriate orders thereon after hearing the petitioner as well as the first respondent-society, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 15548/2010 9