IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9271 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.K.PRAKASH, S/O.CHERAKKAN, AGED 35, MEMBER - 3629, VELLAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4300, RESIDING AT PALLATHUPARA VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, MANIMALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 543. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, P.B.NO.185, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KOTTAYAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, VELLAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4300, KADAYINIKADU P.O., KANGHAZHA, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9271/2010 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ARC NO.129 OF 2009 FILED BY K.M.SURENDRAN BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 7/03/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS. P3: THE 1ST, 2ND, 11TH AND 12TH PAGES OF THE MANGALAM DAILY DTD. 10/03/2010. P4: THGE MANGALAM DAILY DTD. 10/03/2010 PUBLISHED AND CIRCULATED IN KOTTAYAM. P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 11/03/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9271 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a member of the third respondent Society. The petitioner complains that without complying with the mandatory procedures envisaged by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the 'Act' for short) and the rules thereunder, amendments have been passed to the bye laws of the Society. The petitioner also complains that the general body meeting convened for the above purpose was also not properly convened. Though this Writ Petition was filed initially seeking to interdict the conduct of the annual general body meeting that was proposed to be held on 20.3.2010, the meeting was conducted and the amendments have been passed. It is submitted that the amendments have been forwarded to the second respondent for registering them. The petitioner as well as various other members of the Society have objections against registering the said amendments. The counsel for the petitioner submits that they may be permitted to raise all their objections before the second respondent. 2. In view of the limited relief that is sought for, this Writ Petition wpc No.9271/2010 2 itself is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider all the objections raised against the amendments by the petitioner or by any other member of the third respondent Society, to consider such objections and to pass appropriate orders thereon, before registering the amendments. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge css/