[Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules] 15 Days' Notice For 'No Confidence Motion' To Be Computed From Date Of Issuance Of Notice: High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that 'fifteen clear days notice' prescribed for convening a meeting for removal of the President or Vice-President of a cooperative society by a no-confidence motion under Rule 43-A(ii) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 is to be computed from the date of issuance of notice and not from the date of service of notice.

A single bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that if such an interpretation is not given, people may evade the service of notice indefinitely making the provision unworkable:

“… 'not less than fifteen clear days of notice of such meeting', as provided in Rule 43-A(ii), has to be understood as 15 clear days computed from the date of issue of the notice and not from the date of service of notice. If any other interpretation is given, it will make the provision unworkable as it is always possible that a person may evade the service for a longer period to frustrate the holding of the meeting for passing the motion of no confidence.”

The Court relied on the Apex Court judgement in Jai Charan Lal Anal v. State of U.P. and others (AIR 1968 SC 5), where the provisions of the U.P Municipalities Act pertaining to ‘seven clear days notice’ relating to a no confidence motion was interpreted to be seven clear days from the date of despatch of notice till the date of meeting.

The Court was considering a challenge to a notice issued by the officer of the Registrar, convening a meeting to consider a motion of no confidence against the Petitioner, being the President of the management committee of Kuruvilassery Service Co-Operative Bank. He argued that not giving 15 clear days of notice as prescribed under Rule 43-A of the Rules for convening a meeting to consider a no confidence motion, is illegal and warrants interference. He contended that 'fifteen clear days notice' implied 15 days between the date of receipt of notice and the date of meeting.

The Court observed that the Petitioner failed to explain how the late service of notice caused prejudice to him. “The right to remove the President or the Vice-President or the Treasurer or any other officer of the Committee of a Society from his office by a no-confidence motion stems out of the Statute. It is also part of democratic process,” the Court observed.

The Court refused to interfere with the notice issued observing that there were 18 clear days intervening the date of despatch of notice and the date of meeting.

The Court had earlier passed an interim order staying the proceedings pursuant to the notice. The Court held that a fresh notice need not be issued in such a situation:

“When a meeting is stayed and could not be held under order of the Court, it has to be treated that the meeting has been adjourned by force of law. An adjourned meeting is treated as continuation of the earlier meeting. A notice of intention to move the no confidence motion against the petitioner has already been submitted before the 1st respondent as evident from Ext. P1 and other proceedings. There is no requirement of a fresh notice of intention to move the motion. The officer authorised shall convene a meeting of the Committee for consideration of the said motion in terms of the statutory requirements under Rule 43-A(ii) of the Rules.”

Case Title: Joshy Pereppadan V. Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies (General)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 297

Click here to read/download judgment