The petitioner has filed both these writ petitions alleging that respondents 4 to 7 have become disentitled to continue as members of the second respondent bank for the reason that they are also members of the 8th respondent (in W.P.(C) No.13282 of 2014) bank. Therefore, it is contended that they are disqualified to be members of the second respondent bank, in view of Rule 27 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Rules' for short). The petitioner has also submitted Exhibit P1 complaint to the first respondent to which also there has been no response, according to him. 2. The contentions of the petitioner are opposed by the counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 7. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on their behalf in both the writ petitions. The 8th respondent has filed a separate W.P.(C) Nos.13282 & 13934 of 2014 -:2:-
counter affidavit pointing out that respondents 3 to 7 are in fact members of the 8th respondent also. Though they have submitted their resignations subsequent to the filing of the writ petitions, no action has been taken thereon. It is further pointed out that, some of the respondents are indebted to 8th respondent society and therefore, their resignations cannot be accepted.
3. Advocate P.P. Jacob who appears for respondents 3 to 7 disputes the assertions made in the counter affidavit of the 8th respondent that amounts are due to the said society. It is contended that the amounts have since been paid. It is also contended that, the second respondent is a Service Co-operative Bank, while the 8th respondent is an Urban Co-operative Bank. Therefore, they are not societies of the the same type. For the above reason, the prohibition in Rule 27 does not apply to respondents 3 to 7.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader Sri.D.Somasundaram points out that, the first respondent W.P.(C) Nos.13282 & 13934 of 2014 -:3:-
has got powers under Rule 27(ii) of the Rules to consider the objection raised against respondents 3 to 7. Since Exhibit P1 is pending, he assures that the same would be considered. Advocate B.S.Swathi Kumar who appears for the petitioners also agrees that the matter may be considered by the first respondent. Advocate C.P.Mohammed Nias appears for the 8th respondent.
5. Heard. Rule 27(ii) confers powers on the first respondent to consider objections regarding the prohibition contained in sub rule (i) of Rule 27. Exhibit P1 complaint has already been submitted by the petitioner and is pending consideration of the said authority. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the objections and all the contentions raised in this writ petition are better decided by the first respondent while considering Exhibit P1.
In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Exhibit P1 complaint submitted by the petitioner and to pass W.P.(C) Nos.13282 & 13934 of 2014 -:4:-
appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner, respondents 3 to 7 and 8.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj