Cooperative Societies Rules: 15 Days’ Notice For No Confidence Motion Must Be Computed From Date Of Issue Of Notice- Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court has held that under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, 15 days of notice for the no-confidence motion must be computed from the date of issue of notice instead of the date of service of notice.
A Single Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman said, “… 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 Bench noted that 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 from the statute.
Advocates Manu Govind and A. Jayasankar appeared for the petitioner while Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.
In this case, a plea was filed by the President of the Management Committee of a cooperative society challenging notice of the authorized officer of the Registrar convening a meeting of the committee to consider a motion of no confidence against him. When the petitioner complained that the requirement of giving fifteen clear days’ notice between the date of receipt of notice and the date of the meeting as contemplated under Rule 43-A(ii) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules was not fulfilled, the said officer issued fresh notice dated June 10, 2022, adjourning the meeting.
Contending that he got the notice of the adjourned meeting only on June 15, 2022 and that there was no 15 days’ notice, the petitioner submitted a complaint before the officer requesting to defer the consideration of the no-confidence motion. Since the officer did not accede to the petitioner’s request, he approached the court seeking to set aside the notice and direction to issue a fresh notice for the same.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “The petitioner has not stated in what manner he was prejudiced by the late service of notice. … 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. This Court has passed an interim order on 28.06.2022 keeping in abeyance the proceedings proposed by Ext. P4 notice. 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.”
The Court said that an adjourned meeting is treated as a continuation of the earlier meeting and that a notice of intention to move the no-confidence motion against the petitioner has already been submitted before Joint Registrar.
“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”, noted the Court.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the meeting shall be convened within thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of its judgment.
Cause Title- Joshy Pereppadan v. Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies (General) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:KER:33379)