Kerala High Court
Krishnakumar T.R vs N.V.Usha on 23 June, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1948
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2020 IN WP(C) NO.27368 OF
2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/FIFTH RESPONDENT:
KRISHNAKUMAR T.R., CHIEF ACCOUNTANT,
NARAKKAL SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO. E 91,
NJARAKKAL P.O, ERNAKULAM 682 505
BY ADV SHRI.P.N.MOHANAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 N.V.USHA, AGED 50 YEARS
MUTHEDATHUKUDY, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM.
2 NJARAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. E 91,
NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES (G)
ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-
682 030
4 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
5 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION(C) DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
BY ADV SRI.M.M.MONAYE
SR GP - SRI. AJITH VISWANATHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.06.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.1092/2020, 1116/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1948
WA NO. 1092 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2020 IN WP(C)
NO.12753 OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:
N.V.USHA
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, NARAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LTD NO. E91, NARAKKAL P.O.ERNAKULAM-682 505.
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 5:
1 T.R.KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS
SECRETARY, NARAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO E 91, NARAKKAL P.O. ERNAKULAM-682 505
2 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (CO-
OPERATION DEPARTMENT), SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), 5TH FLOOR, B2 BLOCK, KAKKANADU CIVIL
STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
3
4 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF NJARAKKAL SERVICE CO-
OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO E 91,
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, NJARAKKAL P.O.ERNAKULAM-
682 505.
5 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, OFFICE OF THE
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR
SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2026, ALONG WITH WA.1084/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1948
WA NO. 1116 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2020 IN WP(C)
NO.12753 OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
KRISHNAKUMAR.T.R.,
SECRETARY,NARAKKAL SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.NO.E 91,
NARAKKAL.P.O, ERNAKULAM-682505.
BY ADV SHRI.P.N.MOHANAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT),
SECETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES(GENERAL), 5TH FLOOR B2 BLOCK,KAKKANADU
CIVIL STATION,ERNAKULAM-682030.
3 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF NARAKKAL SERVICE CO-
OP.BANK LTD.NO. E 91, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT,
NARAKKAL.P.O, ERNAKULAM-682505.
4 USHA.N.V, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,NARAKKAL SERVICE CO-
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
5
OP.BANK LTD.NO.E 91, NARAKKAL.P.O,ERNAKULAM-
682505.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2026, ALONG WITH WA.1084/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1948
WA NO. 1717 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2020 IN WP(C)
NO.27368 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
N.V.USHA, AGED 50 YEARS
MUTHEDATHUKUDY, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 NJARAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
NO.E.91, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY-682 505.
2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G),
ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI-682 030.
3 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT,
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
7
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5 T.R.KRISHNAKUMAR,
CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, NJARAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LTD, NO.E 91, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM-682 505
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2026, ALONG WITH WA.1084/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
8
'CR'
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.1084/2020, 1092/2020, 1116/2020, 1717/2020]
Devan Ramachandran, J.
Sometimes called “Henry VIII Clause” – often
pejoratively, Section 101 and Rule 181 of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act and the Rules thereunder respectively, vest power
with the Government to offer exemption to societies registered
under the provisions of the afore “Act”, from the rigour of the
statutory stipulations contained therein and in the Rules. The
nature and amplitude of the power of the Government acting
under these provisions have often evoked strong reactions and it
is not different in this case; though the question posed is, if the
Government can offer exemption from the provisions of the
“Rules” to a society in defiance of the conditions precedent
attached to the statutory power of the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies in granting exemptions to individual employees in
specified circumstances.
2. These four appeals have been heard together, since
the constitutive facts involved in them are analogous; and
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
9
because the parties are common.
3. There are two writ petitions involved in these
matters, namely, W.P.(C) No. 12753/ 2018 and WP(C) No.27368/
2019.
4. The genesis for the controversy is that the then
Assistant Secretary of the “Njarakkal Service Co-operative Bank
Limited” (‘Bank’ for short), wanted to be promoted as
Secretary, even though she was lacking in the stipulated
experience; and hence the latter adopted a resolution, invoking
Rule 181 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (“Rules”
thereunder), to seek exemption to themselves from the said
Rules from the Government, to enable such promotion.
5. It transpires that the Government issued orders
granting exemption; and Sri.Krishnakumar – who was also an
Assistant Secretary, but junior to Smt.N.V.Usha, filed W.P(C)
No. 12753/ 2018 challenging the said order of the Government;
while, Smt.N.V.Usha filed WP(C) No.27368/ 2019, because the
order of exemption, according to her, was tinkered by the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies illegally, by ordering that the
benefit therein would only act prospectively, namely from its
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
10
date, being 28.06.2018. Her specific case is that the exemption
ought to have operated from 23.11.2016, which is the date on
which the Bank had sought such from the Government through
their resolution
6. The learned Single Judge considered the writ
petitions together and dismissed them; against which, both
Smt.N.V.Usha and Sri.Krishnakumar are in appeal.
7. For the record, W.A No.1092 of 2020 has been filed
by Smt.N.V.Usha against the judgment in W.P(C) No. 12753/
2018; while, she has filed W.A No.1717 of 2020 against the
judgment in WP(C) No.27368/ 2019.
8. As far as Sri.Krishnakumar is concerned, he has filed
W.A No.1116 of 2020 against the judgment in W.P(C) No. 12753/
2018; as also W.A No.1084 of 2020 against the judgment in
WP(C) No.27368/ 2019.
9. In the midst of all the pleadings and documents
placed on record, the germane and short question is whether the
Government obtains right under Rule 181 of the ‘Rules’, to
grant exemption to the Bank, which was impermissible for the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies to have granted to
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
11
Smt.N.V.Usha under Rule 185(8) thereof.
10. The afore question has been invited because the
Bank, in fact, had adopted two resolutions – one to seek
exemption from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in favour
of Smt.N.V.Usha, for the purpose of her appointment as the
Secretary, under the provisions of Rule 185(8) of the Rules; and
the other to seek exemption for themselves from the operation
of the “Act”, before the Government, under Rule 181 of the
‘Rules’.
11. We are told that the Registrar expressed his inability
to consider the resolution preferred before him because of the
rigour of Rule 185(8)(b) of the Rules, since Smt.N.V.Usha did not
have the experience of five years; as mandated therein.
12. However, the Government, as said above, granted
exemption to the Bank from the “Rules”, thus enabling them to
promote Smt.N.V.Usha.
13. It is, therefore, ineluctable that if we are to hold that
the Government had the power to grant exemption as they have
done, then the appointment of Smt.N.V.Usha would have to be
found to be proper; with the only other question being whether
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
12
the order of Registrar, to limit the exemption from a date after
26.08.2018, would be proper.
14. Sri.P.N.Mohanan – learned counsel for
Sri.Krishnakumar, argued that, when the “Rules” mandate that
the Registrar could have granted exemption to Smt.N.V.Usha
from the educational qualifications necessary for appointment as
the Secretary, only if she satisfied the criteria under Sub-Rule (b)
thereof, namely: that he/she should have passed the JDC or
equivalent; and should have had a minimum service of five years
in the feeder category; and should not be less than 45 years of
age, the said Authority was legally incapacitated from acceding
to it since, she did not have the unexpendable experience. He
contented that it was solely to get over this, that the Society
approached the Government under Rule 181 of the “Rules”,
which resulted in the order of exemption dated 26.06.2018. He
predicated that the Government could not have ordered
exemption in the manner they have done, since it could not have
granted more than what the Registrar could have done under
Rule 185(8) of the “Rules”.
15. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned counsel for Smt.Usha,
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
13
in refutation, submitted that the above contentions of
Sri.P.N.Mohanan are factually and legally incorrect because, his
client had the educational qualification, as also the minimum
service in the feeder category, and was also above 45 years of
age, to thus deserving of having been granted exemption by the
Registrar himself. He added that the Bank, nevertheless, decided
to approach the Government, under Rule 181 of the “Rules”, for
no reason that can be attributed to his client – which has been
granted; and consequently, that the Registrar could not have,
thereafter, modified that order, by directing that the exemption
therein would apply only prospectively from 28.06.2018 and not
from 23.11.2016, when the resolution had been passed. He
prayed that, therefore, the appeals filed by his client be allowed
and the appeals filed by Sri.Krishnakumar be dismissed.
16. Sri.M.M.Monaye – learned Standing Counsel for the
Bank, submitted that his client had adopted the resolutions in
question because, Smt.N.V.Usha was much more Senior to
Sri.Krishnakumar in the category of Assistant Secretary; and had
acquired JDC qualification, as also the minimum service in the
feeder category and being over 45 years in age. He explained
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
14
that, even though his client had adopted a resolution to request
the Registrar to pass orders of exemption in favour of
Smt.N.V.Usha, under the provisions of Rule 185(8) of the
“Rules”; they thought it better, on the side of caution, to adopt
an additional resolution, to seek exemption from the “Rules” for
themselves from the Government, under Rule 181 of it.
17. Sri.M.M.Monaye reiteratingly explained that, the
afore was done only because Smt.N.V.Usha fully deserved the
promotion — which she was granted later — being the senior
most in service; and has now retired from service. He concluded
his submissions, asserting that, in fact, there would be no
purpose in this Court considering the merits of these matters at
this stage, for the reason that not only has Smt.N.V.Usha retired,
but also because Sri.Krishnakumar T.R. has been appointed
subsequently as a Secretary.
18. As indicated above, the main thrust of the arguments
of Sri.P.N.Mohanan is that the Government could not have
granted exemption to the society under Rule 181 of the “Rules”,
disregarding the requisites mentioned in Rule 185(8)(b) thereof.
19. To get a grip of the afore contention, one will have
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
15
to read Rule 181 of the “Rules”, for which purpose, it is extracted
under:
“The State Government may, by general or special order
and subject to such conditions as they deem fit, exempt
any registered society or class of such societies from any
of the provisions of these rules or may direct that such
provisions shall apply to such society or class of societies
with such modifications as may be specified in the order.”
20. It is rather perspicuous that Rule 181 vests the
State Government with plenary powers to exempt any society or
class of societies from the provisions of the “Rules”; and can
even direct that such provisions would apply only with such
modifications as may be specified in the order. This power is in
contradistinction to the one vested in the Government under
Section 101 of the “Act”, which allows them, normally, to exempt
any society from its provisions only in public interest.
21. To paraphrase, Section 101 of the “Act” extends to
situations where the government deems it necessary to exempt a
society from its provisions – in which case, they can do so only if
they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so in public interest;
while, under Rule 181 of the “Rules”, such a restriction, for the
Government to exclude a society or class of societies from the
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
16
provisions of the “Rules”, are not stipulated.
22. Ineluctably, therefore, when the power of the
Government under Rule 181 of the “Rules” is restricted by
nothing more than the obligation to act judiciously, keeping in
mind the purpose and objects sought to be achieved, it can never
be conceded that they cannot do what the Registrar could not
have done under Rule 185(8) of the “Rules”. Any argument to
the contrary would stand untenable because, Rule 181 sanctions
power to the Government to exempt a society or class of society
from any provision of the “Rules”; and that includes Rule 185
thereof also. It is well settled that an order under Rule 181 of
the “Rules” cannot be challenged as a mere administrative order
because, the power which flows from it is essentially incidental
to subordinate legislative power (see for support Purushothaman
Nair v. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 879].
23. The afore being said, as per the admitted positions
of the parties, Smt.N.V.Usha was the seniormost of the Assistant
Secretaries in the services of the society; and it was to ensure
that she obtained the opportunity of being promoted as
Secretary, that the latter applied for exemption before the
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
17
Government. The accession of the Government to such a
request can surely not seem to be unjust or unfair.
24. In the conspectus of the admitted fact that
Smt.N.V.Usha has retired from service, we do not think that it
will be justified for us to intervene in her appointment,
particularly since the exemption obtained by the society was not
on account of any action that can be directly attributed to her.
To add to this, Sri.Krishnakumar T.R. is now stated to be working
as Secretary; and to that extent, his grievance also stands
allayed.
25. The surviving question is whether the order of the
Government could have been interpreted by the Registrar, to
hold that the exemption therein operates only from 26.06.2018,
being its date. We notice that the learned Single Judge has
approved this; but are forced to a different opinion because, it is
well settled that, when the Government issued its order without
a specific date being fixed for it to operate from, or without
showing it to be either prospective or retrospective, it will
indubitably relate back to the date on which the resolution was
passed by the society. In this case, the resolution, admittedly,
2026:KER:45459
WA NO. 1084 OF 2020 & con.
18
was adopted on 23.11.2016; and we are, therefore, of the view
that the holdings in the judgment in WP(C) No.27368/2019 – that
the order of the Government, produced as Ext.P10 therein,
operates only prospectively – cannot obtain forensic favour.
In the afore circumstances:
(a) WA No.1084/2020 and 1116/2020 are dismissed.
(b) WA No.1092/2020 and 1717/2020 are allowed in
part, clarifying that the order of exemption of the Government,
produced along with WP(C) No.27368/2019 as Ext.P10, will be
construed to be operating from the date on which the bank
adopted its resolution, namely on 23.11.2016.
Needless to say, all consequences pursuant to our
declarations above will follow.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/- BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
stu
