IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 16544 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ V.V.VENUGOPALAN, VELUR VALAPPIL HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA, (SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.M270, PERINTHALMANNA-679 322). BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE MALPPURAM DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.M 693, PERINTHALMANNA- 679 322, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16544 OF 2009 (K) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Secretary of Perinthalmanna Taluk Rural Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. In terms of Rule 44(1)(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rule, being a paid employee of the aforesaid Co-operative Society, was ineligible for being elected or appointed as the member of the committee of the society where he is an employee or of any other society. However, in view of the proviso enabling the Registrar to exempt any society or any person from the operation of the aforesaid ineligibility for such period to be specified by him, by Ext.P1, exemption was granted to the petitioner to become a member of the Committee of the Malappuram District Tourism Promotion and Development Co- operative Ltd. Ext.P1 order itself provided that such exemption will enure till the expiry of the term of the Committee. 2. Accordingly, petitioner contested and was elected to the Committee of the latter Society. On expiry of the term of the Committee, election was scheduled and thereupon the society of which the petitioner is the Secretary passed Ext.P2 resolution WPC 16544/09 :2 : requesting the Registrar to exempt the petitioner from the operation of Rule 44(1)(f). Ext.P2 resolution was forwarded to the Joint Registrar as per Ext.P3 letter. The request was considered and by Ext.P4, the request has been turned down. 3. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that during the period when the petitioner was the member of the Committee of the Malappuram District Tourism Promotion and Development Co- operative Ltd., enquiry was held under Section 65 and proceedings under Section 68 have been initiated and are pending against the Board of Directors. In view of this, the 1st respondent deems it appropriate not to grant exemption. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 and praying that exemption be ordered to be granted to enable the petitioner to contest in the election. 4. It is true that going by the provisions of the Rule, only a person who has been surcharged suffers a disqualification to have membership of the Committee. Therefore, petitioner's contention is that the pendency of proceedings under Sections 65 or 68 cannot render him ineligible to contest in the election and that for that reason, Ext.P4 is illegal. 5. In my view, the question is whether the reason stated by WPC 16544/09 :3 : the 1st respondent for declining exemption as provided in the proviso to Rule 44(1)(f) of the Rules is arbitrary, warranting to be interfered in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, when the petitioner was also a member of the Board of Directors of the Malappuram Society referred to above, proceedings were initiated under Section 65 and show cause notice has been issued under Section 68(1) of the Act. Such proceedings are still pending and therefore, as at present, petitioner is exposed to proceedings under Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It is on that reason that the 1st respondent has declined to grant exemption to the petitioner from the purview of Rule 44(1)(f). In my view, the only issue is as to whether in exercising his discretion that is conferred on him, the 1st respondent has committed any error or perversity. In this case, certainly pendency of the proceedings under Sections 65 and 68 is a relevant consideration and if that be so, the view taken by the 1st respondent in Ext.P4 cannot be said to be an arbitrary one, which alone calls for interference in a proceedings under Article 226 . I am not persuaded to interfere. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp