Co-operative Societies Rules | Co-Opted Managing Committee Member Cannot Be Removed At Elected Board’s Pleasure, Removal Only Through Rule 43-A No-Confidence Procedure
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice K. Babu, in a common judgment disposing of two connected writ petitions, upheld the statutory position that a co-opted member of a co-operative society’s managing committee cannot be removed at the “pleasure” of the elected board, and that removal of any committee member, elected or co-opted, must follow the no-confidence procedure under Rule 43-A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The Court declined to interfere with the Registrar’s order that rescinded a resolution by the managing committee of a cooperative hospital society withdrawing a co-opted Professional Director and co-opting another person in his place. Consequently, the co-opted Professional Director continues as a committee member, and the subsequent co-option was held unsustainable.
The writ petitions arose from a dispute concerning the removal of a co-opted member from the managing committee of a co-operative hospital society and the consequential co-option of another person in his place. After the election to the managing committee, the committee co-opted a professional member under the statutory provision enabling co-option of persons with specialised expertise. Subsequently, in a meeting of the managing committee, a resolution was adopted to withdraw the co-opted member and to induct another person.
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued notice to the committee seeking an explanation regarding the removal and fresh co-option and thereafter passed an order rescinding the committee’s decision by invoking statutory supervisory powers. That order was initially set aside by the High Court with a direction to reconsider the matter after affording opportunity to all sides. Upon reconsideration, the Joint Registrar again rescinded the resolution.
The managing committee and the newly co-opted member challenged this order, contending that a co-opted member holds office at the pleasure of the committee and that the Registrar had exceeded jurisdiction. The removed co-opted member contended that the removal was arbitrary, without agenda or notice, and contrary to the statutory procedure, asserting that removal could only be by a no-confidence motion under the relevant rule. The central issue before the Court was the legality of the committee’s resolution removing a co-opted member and the validity of the Registrar’s action in rescinding that resolution.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing the constitution and functioning of managing committees of co-operative societies. It observed that Section 28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act entrusts the management of the affairs of a society to a committee constituted in accordance with the Act and Rules, and that Section 28(1G) enables the committee in office to co-opt persons possessing specialised knowledge. The Court recorded that the Act and the Rules do not contemplate any concept of co-option being subject to the “pleasure” of the managing committee.
While dealing with the reliance placed on the pleasure doctrine, the Court stated that such doctrine was drawn from a distinct statutory context and held that “the ‘pleasure doctrine’ is not applicable to the present facts, as the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or Rules do not provide such a course.” The Court further observed that Rule 43-A was specifically introduced to provide a statutory mechanism for removal of members of the committee by way of a no-confidence motion, and that “by way of SRO 1185/2003, Rule 43-A was incorporated providing a specific provision for removal of a member of the committee by way of a no-confidence motion.”
The Court reiterated the settled principle governing statutory compliance and recorded that “when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, it is to be done in that way or not at all.” It was observed that Rule 43-A “prescribes, the only manner in which a member of the committee of a society may be removed.”
On the procedural infirmities, the Court noted that the resolution to remove the co-opted member was taken without including the subject in the agenda of the meeting and without issuing notice to the affected member. It recorded that “the subject ‘removal of respondent No.2 from his office’ was not an agenda in the proposed meeting.” The Court accepted the submission that removal of a committee member could not be treated as a routine item under “any other matter permitted by the President” and observed that “only very urgent matters requiring emergent consideration could be taken up under the head ‘any other matter’.”
With respect to the Registrar’s jurisdiction, the Court observed that Rule 176 confers wide powers on the Registrar to rescind resolutions that are contrary to the Act or Rules. It recorded that “the Registrar is competent to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or the committee, if it appears to him that such resolution is against the provisions of the Act, Rules or Bye-laws.” The Court concluded that “the petitioner, the Managing Committee of the Society, was acting against the Act and Rules while passing the resolution to remove respondent No.2 without resorting to Rule 43-A of the Rules.”
The Court held that “Rule 43-A of the Rules prescribes, the only manner in which a member of the committee of a society may be removed.” It recorded that the managing committee acted contrary to the Act and the Rules in removing the co-opted member without invoking the statutory procedure and observed that “the petitioner, the Managing Committee of the Society, was acting against the Act and Rules while passing the resolution to remove respondent No.2 without resorting to Rule 43-A of the Rules.”
The Court found that the Joint Registrar had acted within the scope of statutory authority and stated that “the act of the Registrar while passing Exhibit P14 resolution was within the limits of his statutory power. Exhibit P14 decision rescinding the resolution of the petitioner-committee to remove respondent No.2 from the managing committee, is within the powers of the Registrar.”
“The co-option of petitioner No.2 … as per Exhibit P3 resolution will not survive.” It further declared that “respondent No.2 … will continue to be a member of the managing committee consequent to the decision in Ext.P14.” The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. George Poonthottam, Senior Advocate; Smt. Nisha George; Shri. Anshin K.K.
For the Respondents: Shri. Kaleeswaram Raj; Kum. Thulasi K. Raj; Smt. Aparna Narayan Menon; Smt. Chinnu Maria Antony; Smt. C.S. Sheeja, Senior Government Pleader.
Case Title: C.T. Sajith v. State of Kerala & Ors. and connected matters
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:92768
Case Numbers: W.P.(C) Nos. 46208 of 2024 and 24928 of 2025
Bench: Justice K. Babu
