Dismissed

V.a.Hamsa v. Joint Registrar,Co-Operative Socities

Kerala HC7 Feb 2008WP(C)/2470/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of respondents as peons/watchmen in a co-operative bank. The petitioner alleged corruption but lacked specific pleadings. The Court found no ground to interfere as the petitioner had rights to raise objections within the democratic institutional process and existing internal mechanisms were available.

What did the court decide?

Directing the dismissal of the writ petition failed.

V.a.Hamsa Vs Joint Registrar,Co-Operative Socities — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 2470 of 2006(R)

¶6

------------------------------------PETITIONER:

¶7

------------------V.A. HAMSA, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 52 YEARS, VARAPPARAMBIL VEEDU, WEST KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA-10.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

-----------------------

¶11

1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. THE ERNAKULAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.E.87, ALUVA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

3. MR. K.K. JINNAS, S/O. KOCHUNNI, AGED 52 YEARS, THE PRESIDENT, THE ERNAKULAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.E.87, ALUVA.

¶14

4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

5. SEEMA E.A., W/O. V.K. SHANAVAS, ASGED 30 YEARS, VELLOOKUZHI HOUSE, WEST KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA.

¶16

6. PAULY, S/O. K.D. PAULOSE, AGED 34 YEARS, KALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, EZHATTUMUGHAM P.O., ANGAMALI.

¶17

7. ALI, S/O. KOCHUMUHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS, KUZHAKKATTIL HOUSE, KARUKUNNU P.O., ALUVA.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI. SMT.P.A.ANITHA SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C) NO.2470/2006

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 7.11.05 ISSUED BY THE ERNAKULAM COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK.

¶24

EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 28.12.05.

¶25

EXT.P3:- THE QUESTION PAPER FOR THE TEST ISSUED BY THE BANK.

¶26

EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 28.7.04 TO INITIATE ENQUIRY AGAINST THE ACTIVITIES GOING ON IN THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK.

¶27

EXT.P5:- RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY DT. 30.12.05 SHOWING THE MALPRACTICES GOING ON REGARDING SELECTION TO THE POST OF PEON CUM WATCHMAN.

/ TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶32

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C) No. 2470 of 2006-R

¶33

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶34

Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2008

¶35

Petitioner, a member of the second respondent Co-operative Bank, makes out a case that he had made a complaint to the first respondent Joint Registrar that respondents 5 to 7 are about to be selected and appointed as peons/watchmen in the service of the second respondent. He attributed the same to corruption. Thereafter, written test and interview were held leading to the appointment of respondents 5 to 7.

¶36

The learned counsel for the third respondent, the President of the Bank points out that there is no specific pleading in the writ petition or the application before the Joint Registrar regarding corruption or ineligibility of the candidates and that the pleadings in the writ petition is confined to general statements regarding illegality etc.

¶37

W.P.(C).No.2470/2006-R

¶38

-: 2 :-

¶39

It is not in dispute that a written test was conducted followed by an interview. Selection and appointments have been made. There were rival candidates. If at all, the selection was to be held as bad, the challenge ought to come from the rival candidates. The mere fact that the petitioner had preconceived the persons who are likely to be appointed does not itself lead to an inference that should trigger the exercise of writ jurisdiction or for the Joint Registrar to take up the complaint of the petitioner and run a decision thereon. This is all the more so because, in a democratic process in any institution like the second respondent, the petitioner has the right to bring to the notice of the General Body and the committee any allegation that he has against the conduct of the proceedings of the Society including any selection. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent further states that in the case in hand under Section 65 of the K.C.S Act, enquiry was held and that lead to proceedings under Section 32 of the K.C.S. Act for supersession and still further that the supersession order had been set aside by the Government in a statutory appeal.

¶40

W.P.(C).No.2470/2006-R

¶41

-: 3 :-

¶42

In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no ground to issue any directions as sought for. Writ petition fails and the same is

¶43

dismissed.

¶44

Sd-

¶45

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge

¶46

V.a.Hamsa v. Joint Registrar,Co-Operative Socities

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.a.Hamsa v. Joint Registrar,Co-Operative Socities

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandran Nair Vs the District Collector, Kollam & Others

K. Divakaran Vs the State of Kerala

Govindan C.P. Vs the District Collector

K.M.Joshi Vs State of Kerala

T.S. Pushpavally Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies(Gnrl)

Rajech C.K. Vs Cherthala Co-Op.Agricultural & Rural