IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17828 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.K. RAJENDRAN, PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT KARUMANASSERY HOUSE, KIZHAKKANCHERY.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE MANAGIND DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN,SC, KSCOA & RDB LTD. FOR RESPONDENT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.17828 of 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 22.6.2011. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT. 24.6.2011. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.6.2011 TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO THE MINISTER OF CO-OPERATION DATED 27.6.2011. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF KERALA DATED 27.6.2011. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN TO THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DATED 27.6.2011 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17828 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 notice issued by the respondent convening a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. at 10.30 a.m. on 2.7.2011 is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised is that the petitioner who is the President of the said Bank has the absolute power to fix the agenda of the meeting and therefore the Managing Director who is bound to obey the directions of the President has no power to fix the date of the meeting and its agenda. Ext.P2 recites that the Managing Director has convened a meeting on the request of 9 members of the Board of Directors named therein, in terms of clause 34 of the bye-laws of the bank. Though the bye-laws of the bank are not produced, the learned counsel for the petitioner made available to me a copy of bye-laws. Clause 34 thereof reads as follows:- 34. Meetings of the Board shall be convened by the Managing Director/General Manager as often as necessary. The Managing Director/General Manager shall, upon a written requisition of atleast seven members of the Board, call a meeting of the Board. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out to me any provision of the bye-laws which enjoins on the W.P.(C) No.17828 of 2011 2 Managing Director the duty to consult the President of the Bank or to obtain his concurrence or consent before convening a meeting in terms of section 34 of the bye-laws. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to clause 33(ii)(a) of the bye-laws, the said provision has no application. All that clause 33(ii)(a) states is that the President shall exercise general control and supervision over the affairs of the bank and the work of its officers. It is further stated that the President shall preside over the meetings of the General Body, the Board and the Executive Committee. It does not stipulate in express terms or even by implication that a meeting to be convened by the Managing Director in terms of the request made by 7 members of the Board of Directors requires the consent or concurrence of the President. I am therefore of the opinion that the challenge to Ext.P2 is without any merit. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.