IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11370 of 2006(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.G.NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS, PERUMPILLIL HOUSE, MARAMPILLY P.O., PALLIPARAMKARA, ALUVA-7. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. MANJAPPETTY MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY E.157 D, APCOS, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJAPPETTY, MARAMPILLY. 2. THE PRESIDENT, MANJAPPETTY MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY E.157 D, APCOS, MANJAPPETTY, MARAMPILLY. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD. 5. DIARY EXTENSION OFFICER, VAZHAKKULAM BLOCK, CHENUNGUMVELY, ALUVA. 6. SANJU K.SALEEM, S/O.SALEEM, KALAPPURACKAL (HOUSE), KUTTIKATTUKARA, KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE. 7. THE SUB REGISTRAR, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER FOR R1&2 SRI.SACHIN JOSEPH FOR R1 SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R6 SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE FOR R6 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.11370/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 25/1/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DT 5.2.2006. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 21/2/2006 PASSED BY THE GRAMASABHA OF VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXTS.OF R6 EXT.R6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RS.3.50 LAKHS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 31.3.2006. EXT.R6(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT DT 3.10.06. EXT.R6(c): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DT 18.10.06. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 11370 OF 2006 (C) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a member of the 1st respondent society. 2. In this writ petition, he is aggrieved by Ext.P4, the sale deed executed by the 1st respondent society in favour of the 6th respondent. The allegation is that 7 cents of land and a building were put in auction by the society pursuant to the resolution of its Board of Directors dated 22/3/2003. It is stated that the resolution of the Board of Directors was approved by the General Body in the meeting held on 5/9/2005. In pursuance to the aforesaid decisions, tenders were invited by the society and the 6th respondent's tender for Rs.3,50,000/-, being the highest, was accepted. Accordingly by Ext.P4, the property in question, namely 7 cents of land and the building, were sold to the 6th respondent. This sale is challenged by the petitioner contending that the said disposal of immovable property, was without prior sanction of the Registrar. 3. The Society has not filed any counter affidavit in this writ petition. WPC 11370/06 :2 : 4. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. He would submit that the society and its officials made him believe that all statutory requirements have been complied with before the disposal of the immovable properties. It is stated that he is a bonafide purchaser and shall not be made to suffer on account of the misconduct of the office bearers of the Society. He also says that he has made complaint to the police against the President of the Society, for having cheated him and that a crime has been registered against the President. 5. Rule 54(2) of the Co-operative Societies Rules provide that no society shall dispose of any immovable property acquired by it without the prior sanction of the General Body and of the Registrar. Admitted position in this case is that the General Body granted its approval on 5/9/2005, but however prior sanction of the Registrar as contemplated in the aforesaid Rule has not been obtained. This factual position is confirmed by the learned Government Pleader also. 6. A reading of the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent also would suggest that this factual assertion made by the petitioner is correct. If that be so, the sale is hit by the WPC 11370/06 :3 : aforesaid provision and will result in its invalidation. This necessarily will only entitle the 6th respondent for refund of the amount paid by him to the Society with interest at prevailing rates. 7. Be that as it may, now that more than three years have elapsed since the sale, and the 6th respondent claims to be a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration, I leave it open to the 6th respondent or the Society to move the Registrar of the Co- operative Societies with an appropriate representation, in which event, I direct that the said authority shall consider their grievance and pass appropriate orders without any further delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp