IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15063 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. P.T.AJAYAMOHAN,PRESIDENT,ANDATHODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, ERAMANGALAM P.O.,MALAPPURAM-679 587. 2. ANDATHODU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1249,ERAMANGALAM P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),MALAPPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. O.M.JAYAPRAKASH,CHIEF PROMOTER, PROPOSED PERUMPADAPPU PANCHAYAT, SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PERUMPADAPPU,MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON 13/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the letter No.0-5618/2006 dated 29.9.2006. Ext.P2. True copy of the objection dated 17.10.2006. Ext.P3. True copy of the judgment in WP(c). No.31975/2006 dated 1.12.2006. Ext.P4. True copy of the letter No.5618/2006/0 dated 3.10.2007. Ext.P5. True copy of the judgment in WP(c).No.31269/07 dated 23.10.2007. Ext.P6. True copy of the appeal petition dated 5.11.2007. Ext.P6(a). True copy of the affidavit and stay petition dated 5.11.2007. Ext.P7. True copy f the order dated 20.11.2007. Ext.P8. True copy of the judgment in WP(c).No.1419/08 dated 11.1.2008. Ext.P9. True copy of the order GO.Rt.No.253/08/Co-opt. dt. 11.4.2008. // true copy// P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.15063 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioners are the President and Secretary of Andathode Service Co-operative Bank, a primary agricultural credit society. The Bank was registered in 1946 with its area of operation spreading over 8 Panchayats. Subsequently, other societies were allowed to be registered resulting in reduction of the area of operation of the petitioner and presently the petitioner is left with two Panchayats namely, Veliamkode and Perumbadappu panchayats. 2. By Ext.P1, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that a letter has been received from the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, informing that an application has been received for registering a Society in the Perumpadappu Grama Panchayat as its area of WP(c).No.15063/08 2 operation and on that basis the petitioner was called upon to file copy of its bye laws. Petitioner objected to the registration of a new co-operative society as mentioned in Ext.P1, as per Ext.P2. Thereafter, they approached this court by filing WP(c).No.31975/06 which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing the 2nd respondent to hear the petitioner also and decide the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner was heard and the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 proceedings, over- ruling the objections of the petitioner against the proposal which will ultimately result in restricting its area of operation to Veliamkode Grama Panchayat. 3. Though Ext.P4 order was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.31264/09, by Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner were relegated to pursue the statutory remedy available. Accordingly, the petitioner moved Ext.P6 appeal and Ext.P6(a) application for stay before the Government. Stay was declined by Ext.P7 order which again was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.1419/08. The writ petition was disposed of by WP(c).No.15063/08 3 Ext.P8 judgment directing the Government to dispose of Ext.P6 itself after hearing the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the parties were heard and by Ext.P9, the objections raised by the petitioners were over-ruled. In that order, the contention of the petitioners that, the formation of a new society within its area of operation is against Section 7 (1)(c) of the Act was rejected. Similarly, the objection relying on Section 2(o)(a) was also turned down. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing Ext.P9, the Government have not taken into account the explanation to Section 2(o)(a) and that if a new Society is allowed to be registered within its area of operation that will be against the provisions of Section 7(1)(c) of the Act. Yet another contention raised by the counsel is relying on Section 12(5) of the Act. 6. Under Section 7(1)(c) of the Act, a new Society cannot be allowed to be incorporated within the area of operation of WP(c).No.15063/08 4 an existing society. As far as Section 2(o)(a) is concerned, in view of the proviso to the sub section, Primary Co-operative Societies like the petitioner, will be free to operate in areas more than what is provided in the section. Therefore, although the findings arrived at by the Government in Ext.P9 cannot be said to be illegal, still there is subsistence in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner relying on Section 12 (5) of the Act which provides that if the Registrar is satisfied that for the purpose of altering the area of operation of a registered society, an amendment to the bye-law is necessary, he may after consulting the financing Bank if any to which the society is affiliated and the circle co-operative union, by order required the society to make amendments within the time specified. Sub Section (6) also provides the course of action available to the Registrar, in the event society fails to comply with the order passed under sub Section (5). 7. In this case, neither in Ext.P4 nor in Ext.P5 is there any indication that the conditions incorporated in Section 12 WP(c).No.15063/08 5 (5) have been complied with by the Registrar. In view of the above, I fee that the matter needs to be considered by the Registrar in the light of Section 12(5) of the Act. 8. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition, directing that on the production of a copy of the judgment, the 2nd respondent will examine as to whether before directing deletion of Perumbadappu Panchayat from the area of operation of the Society, the requirements of Section 12(5) have been complied with and in case the requirements have not been complied with, he shall initiate proceedings in terms thereof and pass fresh orders in this matter. It is made clear that in the other respects, the impugned order will stand upheld. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.15063/08 6