AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners are the President, Vice President and Directors/Managing Committee members of the 2nd respondent, which is a Milk Producers’ Co-operative Society (hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Society’). They were so elected in an election held on 17.06.2022. The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the fact that on a complaint submitted by two persons, who are members of the Society, a contention was taken that the petitioners who are elected to the Managing Committee have not remitted the admission fee and share value. In other words it was contented that the petitioners cannot continue as members of the Managing Committee of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2 show cause notice was issued by the 1st respondent calling for explanations from the petitioners. It is stated that though the petitioners submitted a suitable explanation to Ext.P2 show cause notice as evidenced by Ext.P3, the 1st respondent by Ext.P14 order found that the petitioners have not remitted admission fee and share value and on the basis of the said finding (that the petitioners had not obtained any membership) they were found ineligible to continue as members of the Managing Committee of the Society. As a consequence of the said finding and on the basis that the elected Managing Committee cannot continue in office on account of lack of quorum, an Administrative Committee has now been appointed to manage the affairs of the Society.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently submit that the findings of the 1st respondent in Ext.P14 order are clearly misconceived and contrary to law and fact. It is submitted that some among the petitioners have been members of the Managing Committee for the past nearly 10 years. It is submitted that Ext.P4 to P13 documents will clearly indicate that the petitioners had remitted the share money and admission fees and identity cards have also been issued to them. It is submitted that thus there is a presumption that the petitioners are members of the Society and there is nothing in Ext.P14 order, which would indicate that there is any basis for the finding that the petitioners have not become members of the Society. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent Society is a Primary Milk Producers’ Society functioning in the interior area of Palakkad District, bordering the State of Tamil Nadu and the office bearers of the Society including the petitioners are rustic villagers, who may not have the necessary knowledge and wherewithal to maintain the statutory registers and other documents, which may be required to be maintained in the Society. It is submitted that considering all these aspects, the 1st respondent ought not to have removed the petitioners from membership of the Society resulting in the quorum of the Managing Committee being lost leading to the appointment of an Administrative Committee. It is stated that the complainants themselves have been appointed as members of the Administrative Committee, which itself is sufficient indication of the fact that the purpose behind raising a complaint was to see that the elected Managing Committee is ousted from office. It is submitted that in such circumstances, Ext.P14 order is liable to be set aside.
The learned Government Pleader, submits on instructions, that there are discrepancies in the details submitted by the petitioners before this Court, which would indicate that the findings of the 1st respondent in Ext.P14 order are fully justified. The learned Government Pleader has pointed out that the petitioners did not produce any records before the 1st respondent to justify their contention that they were duly admitted as members of the Society after remitting the share amount. It is submitted that an inspection was conducted in the office of the Society and no documents were found which would justify a finding that the petitioners have been validly admitted as members of the Society. It is submitted that even in Ext.P3 reply given by the petitioners to Ext.P2 show cause notice, they were unable to produce records like membership form, committee resolutions, valid admission registers, valid receipts/counterfoils of membership fee etc. to justify their claim for having been admitted as members of the Society.
The contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader are reiterated by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on the instructions of Adv. Nisha George.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that since the petitioners have a contention that they have in their possession records which would establish that they have been validly admitted as members of the 2nd respondent Society and since the removal from membership has drastic consequences as far as the petitioners are concerned, the matter should be considered again by the 1st respondent, after affording to the petitioners an opportunity of establishing and producing records to show that they have been validly admitted as members of the Society. I am inclined to take such a view taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 2nd respondent Society is a Primary Milk Producers’ Society situated in an interior area of Palakkad District and the petitioners may not have had the wherewithal to understand the consequences of Ext.P2 show cause notice and the failure to submit a proper reply along with documents to justify their claim for having been admitted as members of the 2nd respondent Society. I refrain from referring to the discrepancies in the records now placed before this Court which have been pointed out by the learned Government Pleader as this would influence the fresh adjudication by the 1st respondent.
Therefore, without going into the merits of the contentions taken by either side, this writ petition will stand disposed of setting aside Ext.P14 order and directing that the question as to whether the petitioners were validly admitted as members of the 2nd respondent Society be reconsidered by the 1st respondent, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners to produce all necessary records to show that they were validly admitted as members of the 2nd respondent Society. The 1st respondent may also, if necessary and, on the application of the petitioners, call for necessary records from the Society for the purposes of determining whether there are any documents, which would substantiate the case of the petitioners that they have been validly admitted as members of the Society. Since pursuant to Ext.P14 order, an Administrative Committee has already taken charge of the affairs of the Society, I am of the view that notwithstanding the setting aside of Ext.P14 order, the status quo as on today (01.10.2026) shall continue till fresh orders are passed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent shall endeavour to pass fresh orders, as directed above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.