Co-operative Societies Act | Can't Invoke Writ Jurisdiction To Challenge Disputed Questions Of Fact Concerning Committee Election: Kerala High Court

Justice N. Nagaresh relied upon various judicial precedents and observed that factual disputes regarding election to the Managing Committee of a Society have to be settled by a Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

“The allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition are disputed questions of fact. This Court has held in the judgments in Subramanian v. Devicolam Taluk Plantation Workers Coop. Credit Society [2004 (3) KLT SN 145], Jayavarma K. V. State Co operative Election Commission and others [2017 (1) KLT 921], Kuttiyachan Joseph and another v. P.V.Manoharan and others [2018 (3) KLT 631] and in Chala Farmers Welfare Co-operative Society v. Sahadevan [2020 (2) KLT 531] that when Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 specifically provides a remedy for resolution of dispute in connection with election to the Managing Committee of any Society, such disputes have to be called in question under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.”

The observations were made in a writ petition filed by the petitioners who were the members of Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Thiruvalla for quashing the acceptance of nominations of respondents to the Managing Committee of the Bank.

The factual aspects involved in the case was that the term of the present Managing Committee will expire this month and election notification was published and polling was scheduled. The Returning Officer published final list containing of names of 28 candidates whose nominations were accepted after scrutiny. The petitioners challenge the eligibility of the candidates who were contesting for the election. It was alleged that candidates were not qualified to contest elections according to the provisions of Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, the Rules and the Bye-laws of the Bank. They allege that the final list published by the Returning Officer was illegal and improper and 9 candidates have to be rejected. It was contended that election cannot be conducted with such huge number of disqualified candidates. The decision in Prodair Air products India Private Limited v. State of Kerala (2023) was relied upon to state when there were gross illegalities committed, existence of alternate remedy should not be a bar to entertain a writ petition. Abraham v. Returning Officer (1993) was also relied upon to state that High Court can interfere when there was an error apparent on the face of record, or on grounds of pervasiveness or arbitrariness.

The counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable, and the petitioners have an alternative remedy to approach the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for resolution of disputes in connection with election to the Managing Committee of any Society. The Counsel relied upon judgments in Subramanian v. Devicolam Taluk Plantation Workers Co-op. Credit Society (2004), Jayavarma K. v. State Co-operative Election Commission and others (2017), Kuttiyachan Joseph and another v. P.V. Manoharan and others (2018), Chala Farmers Welfare Co-operative Society v. Sahadevan (2020) to substantiate his contentions.

The Court found that the allegations raised by the petitioners were that the candidates were disqualified and were ineligible to contest the with election to the Managing Committee of the Bank. The Court found that the allegations raised by the petitioners were disputed questions of fact which has to be considered under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and not by a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“In the facts of the case, I find that this is not a fit case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have to resort to the remedy provided under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 for redressal of their grievances.”

On the above observations, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner: Senior Counsel George Poonthottam, Advocates

Nisha George and Anshin K.K

Counsel for the respondents: Advocates C.M.Nazar, T.P.Pradeep, Arun Chandran,Minikumary M.V., P.K.Sathees Kumar, R.K.Prasanth, Jijo Joseph

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 622

Case title: Advocate Rajesh Kumar C v Prasad M Cherian

Case number: WP(C) NO. 34804 OF 2023

Click here to download/read Judgment