IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1176 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17143/2010 Dated 03/06/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST PETITIONER IN WPC 17143/2010 ---------------------------------------------- MURALEEDHARAN T.K., THERUVINKATTIL, NANMANDA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & 2ND PETITIONER IN WPC -------------------------------------------------- 1. NANMANDA RURAL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.NO.D 1988, NANMANDA, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673613, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KOZHIKODE, PUTHIYARA,PIN-673004. 3. RADHAMANI, CHOMANCHANKANDY, NANMANDA, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673613. SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (CO-OP) SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 22225 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A. 1176 of 2010 and W.P.(C) 22225 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: AUGUST 20, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The short but interesting question raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was whether or not clause 5(a) of Ext.P1 byelaws of Nanmanda Rural Co-operative Housing Society is violative of Section 7(1)(d) read with Section 16 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 16 of the Rules thereunder. 2. Appellant prayed that the said clause be declared null and void. He further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 notice issued by the Joint Registrar (General), Kozhikode directing the Society to inform as to what action had been taken to remove those ineligible members from the Committee on the face of clause 5(a)(d) of the byelaws. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the appellant/petitioner and the respondents disposed of the writ petition directing the Joint Registrar to afford the appellant and other similarly situated members an opportunity to be heard before any further action is taken in the mater. The above judgment is impugned in this appeal. 4. The appellant and three other similarly placed members who W.A. 1176 of 2010 and W.P.(C) 22225 of 2010 2 faced the threat of disqualification in the light of clause 5(a)(d) have subsequently filed WP(C) No.22225/2010 when they were served with Ext.P5 notice issued by the Joint Registrar under Rule 44(3) of the Rules directing them to show cause why they should not be disqualified from continuing as members of the Committee. 5. At the very outset we make it clear that we do not propose to consider the merit or demerit of the contentions raised by the appellant and the other writ petitioners at this stage since, in our view, the statutory authority has to be necessarily given the right to decide the issue in accordance with law. As has been noticed already, the issue raised before us is whether a member will automatically lose his membership if he/she fails to apply for and get a loan sanctioned from the Society within three years from the date of his/her enrolement as a member of the Society. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel that as on the date of initiation of action against the appellant and the other members, it cannot be said that they were disqualified since, according to the learned counsel, as on that date the Society had already sanctioned loans in their favour. Learned counsel also places reliance on two decisions of this Court in Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala {1988 (1) KLT 190 (DB)} and in Porinchu T.K. v. Joint Registrar and another {2009 (3) ILR Ker. 927) in this context. W.A. 1176 of 2010 and W.P.(C) 22225 of 2010 3 7. Per contra, it is contended by Ms. Anu Sivaraman, learned Special Government Pleader for Co-operation, that the above contention is wholly unsustainable not only in view of the unambiguous language used in clause 5(a)(d) and Rule 44(2) of the Rules, but also in view of the decision of this Court in Thomas v. Registrar of Co.operative Societies 2007(3) KLT 741. 8. As we have indicated already, we do not propose to deal with either of these contentions. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. The Joint Registrar shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant and other writ petitioners to be heard. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the decision taken by the Joint Registrar, if it is adverse to the appellant and the petitioners, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of ten days from the date of service of the copy of the order on the appellant and the petitioners. The writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of in the above terms. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-