IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20733 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SANTHOSH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LAKSHMANAN, THOZHUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALIKULAM,. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHAVAKKAD. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. KHADER, S/O.ARAVASSERY BEERAN MOIDEEN, ARAVASSERY HOUSE, THALIKKULAM THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20733/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.T 832/2009 DT 29.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DT 10.7.2009. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL BODY MEETING PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 17.3.2005. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL BODY PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY ON 17.3.2005. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF the NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM NEWSPAPER DT 28.3.2009. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY ON 14.4.2009. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT 13.6.2009. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETER DT 17.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E(2) 1060/2009/SCEC(1) DT 15.7.2009 OF THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH 32 OTHER MEMBERS. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.T 832/2009 DT 29.6.2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 15.7.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20733 OF 2009 (J) ===================== Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by respondents 1 and 2. By these orders, respondents 1 and 2 have directed the Thalikulam Service Co-operative Bank Limited, of which the petitioner is the President, to allow voting right to the members of the Bank who pays enhanced share value. 2. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P10 series of complaints were lodged before the Assistant Registrar only by 33 members and by Exts.P1 and P2 orders, it is directed that all those members who have not paid the said amount should be allowed to pay enhanced share value and that all such members who pay the share value should be allowed voting rights. It is contended that the order was unjustified and that at any rate the general direction issued in Exts.P1 and P2 is unwarranted. 3. The procedure which ought to have been complied with by the Society when a resolution changing the liability of the members is as per Section 11 of the Act. Once the resolution changing the liability of the members, such as one enhancing the share value is passed, WPC 20733/09 :2 : Section 11(2) requires that individual notice should be given to the members. In this case, Society has no case that individual members has been given notice. On the other hand, what they contend is that in respect of the annual general body meeting in which the resolution was passed, notice was published in the newspapers and therefore, there is substantial compliance. 4. In my view, this argument cannot be accepted. If a statute requires something to be done in an particular manner, it shall be done only in that manner and Section 11(2) prescribing individual notice is mandatory. Admittedly, that has not been complied with. If that be so, even though the complaint made before the Assistant Registrar and the Joint Registrar was signed only by 33 members, there is nothing wrong if the authorities directed the society to give opportunity to all members, who could not pay the enhanced share value and to permit them to vote in the ensuing election. This being the purport of Exts.P1 and P2, I see nothing perverse in the orders warranting interference by this Court. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the judgment in WP(C) No.19441/09, this Court directed the Joint WPC 20733/09 :3 : Registrar to pass orders on the complaint made by the petitioners therein regarding the non implementation of Exts.P1 and P2 referred to above. It is stated that in pursuance to the said judgment, the Joint Registrar has scheduled the hearing to today and the parties have already appeared before the said authority. Petitioner prays that in the event an order is passed, the Joint Registrar may be directed to communicate the said order without any delay in the matter. 6. Having heard the parties, I feel the prayer sought is justified, so that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, the petitioner can seek his remedies against the said order with due expedition, particularly as election is scheduled to take place on 16/8/09. Therefore, I direct the 2nd respondent to communicate to the petitioner order that is passed in pursuance to the directions in the judgment in WP(C) No.19441/09 immediately on the passing of the order. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp