Only Proposed Amendments To Cooperative Society Bye Laws And Not Existing Provisions Need To Be Published In Local Newspaper: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that newspaper publication of the proposed amendment to bye-laws of a cooperative society alone and not the existing provision of the bye-laws is mandatory for effecting registration of the amendment.Justice Sathish Ninan observed that Rule 9(ii) of the Co-operative Societies Rules and circular No.25/2016 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies...
The Kerala High Court has held that newspaper publication of the proposed amendment to bye-laws of a cooperative society alone and not the existing provision of the bye-laws is mandatory for effecting registration of the amendment.
Justice Sathish Ninan observed that Rule 9(ii) of the Co-operative Societies Rules and circular No.25/2016 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies mandate publication of the proposed amendment of the bye-laws and not the existing provisions. It noted that the Paper publication was intended for the purpose of intimating the members of the society when the members of the society exceeded five hundred in number,
“Therefore, on a proper understanding of Rule 9(ii) of the Rules and Circular No.25/2016, it could only be held that the intimation to the members with regard to the proposed amendment of the bye-laws of the Society, whether it be by personal service or by paper publication as the case may be, need only contain the proposed amendment in its entirety. Such intimation/ publication need not contain the existing provision of the bye-law sought to be amended.”
The petitioner society wanted to register the amendment of bye-laws of the society. The respondents denied the proposed amendment stating that the petitioner society have not satisfied the procedure regarding amendment of bye-laws prescribed in Rule 9(ii) of the Co-operative Societies Rules and circular No.25/2016 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Challenging the refusal of registration, the petitioner society approached the High Court.
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to Rule 9(ii) and the circular, the proposed amendment along with the date, time, place and agenda of the General Body Meeting were to be published in two vernacular dailies having wide publication in the area of operation of the society and other prescribed areas. The specific case of the petitioner society was that only the proposed amendment has to be published and not the existing provisions of bye-laws.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the publication effected by the petitioner society was defective as it only contained the proposed amendments and not the existing provisions of bye-laws.
On an examination of Rule 9 (ii) and circular No.25/2016, the Court stated that the publication only requires publication of the proposed amendment of the bye- laws. The Court found that the purpose of the publication guidelines prescribed in the rules as well as the circular was to inform the members of the Society regarding the proposed amendment. The publication guidelines in the rules as well as the circular does not mandate any difference with regard to the content of the matter to be published, it noted thus,
“All that the Rule requires is, intimation of the proposed amendment to the members of the Society. In Societies where the number of members are less than 500, personal intimation is sufficient and where the number is more than 500 the intimation is permitted to be made by paper publication. The distinction is only with regard to the mode of intimation. There is no reason to make any difference with regard to the contents of the notice/intimation.”
The Court found that the confusion arose as the circular mentioned that the publication should also contain details of amendment proposed. The Court held that details of the proposed amendment would only mean to include the proposed amendment in its entirety and not just the crux of the proposed amendment.
On the basis of the above observations, the Court disposed the writ petition and concluded that the rules and circular mandates publication of the proposed amendment of the bye-laws and not the existing provision of bye-laws.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocate P C Sasidharan
Counsel for the respondents: Senior Government Pleader Mable C Kurian
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
Case title: The Ramapuram Regional Service Co-Operative Bank v State of Kerala
Case number: W.P.(C) No.18739 of 2022