Disposed

E.Lukose @ Luka v. the Director, Department of Fisheries, Tvm

Kerala HC9 Aug 2016WP(C)/1846/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their removal from a fisherman welfare society and alleged maladministration. The court granted quietus, directing the Director of Fisheries to consider a pending representation by the petitioner, allow an opportunity of hearing, and decide the matter within two months.

What did the court decide?

Quietus granted with directions for the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, allow an opportunity of hearing, and decide within two months.

E.Lukose @ Luka Vs the Director, Department of… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/18TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1846 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. E.LUKOSE @ LUKA, (VICE PRESIDENT, MEMBERSHIP NO.10), S/O.ELIYAS, KUZHIVAYAL PURAYIDAM, KAIKULANGARA VADI, KOLLAM.

¶8

2. AGNUS ZACHARIYA, (MEMBERSHIP NO.447), S/O.ZACHARIYA, KUZHIVAYAL PURAYIDAM, KAIKULANGARA VADI, KACHERI P.O., KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, DIRECTORATE OFFICE, KAMALESWARAM, MANACUAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.

¶12

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, DIRECTORATE OFFICE, KAMALESWARAM, MANACUAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.

¶13

3. ASST. REGISTRAR,

¶14

ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETEIS

¶15

(FISHERIES), KOLLAM - 691 003.

¶16

4. PRESIDENT, FISHERMAN WELFARE DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, VAADI, KACHERY P.O., KOLLAM-691 001.

¶17

5. THE VAADI FISHERMAN WELARE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAADI, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

mbr/

¶21

WP(C).No. 1846 of 2016 (E)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1. THE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5/6/2015 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P1(A). THE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1. EXT.P2. THE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P2(A). THE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2. EXT.P3. THE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1/1/2016 NO.F3/1751/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDEN.

¶27

EXT.P3(A). THE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.

¶28

EXT.P4. THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/1/2016.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶34

W.P.(C)NO.1846 OF 2016

¶35

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Petitioners are members of the 5^th respondent society. The 2^nd respondent vide Exts.P1 and P3 notices held that there are large scale maladministration, misappropriation of fund and illegal appointment is the contention raised by the petitioners in this writ petition. It is also contended that Exts.P1 and P3 are based on the enquiry report of the 3^rd respondent. Petitioners were removed from the primary membership of the society by violating rules and regulations stipulated in the by-law, alleging that they worked against the interest of the society. The 3^rd respondent set aside the decision taken by the society to remove the petitioners from the membership of the society. 1^st petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 3^rd respondent making allegations against the maladministration in

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C)NO.1846 OF 2016

¶40

the society and same is pending consideration. It is in this background this writ petition is filed.

¶41

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. Since Ext.P4 representation is submitted by the 1^st petitioner alleging certain allegations against the maladministration in the Fisherman Welfare Development Society, I am of the considered opinion quietus can be given to this writ petition by issuing appropriate direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 and take a decision on the same. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P4 is addressed to the Registrar, Fisheries Department, Thiruvananthapuram. However, the Registrar is not a party to the proceedings. I make it clear that if the representation is not already before the 2^nd respondent, the Registrar, Fisheries Department, Thiruvananthapuram, shall transmit the same to the 2^nd respondent within two weeks from the date of

¶42

W.P.(C)NO.1846 OF 2016 3

¶43

receipt of a copy of this judgment and the 2^nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the first petitioner as well as any other interested persons and take a decision in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶45

sd/-

¶46

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶47

R.AV

E.Lukose @ Luka v. the Director, Department of Fisheries, Tvm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Lukose @ Luka v. the Director, Department of Fisheries, Tvm

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

Geetha K. Vs Vizhavoor Vanitha Co-Op Society Ltd. NO.T-1028

Resmi V.R. Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Development and

G.Suganan Vs the Jt Registrar of Co-Operative

Sibeshkumar.a.K. Vs State of Kerala

K.Krishnan Vs Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank

Manjeri Scb Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societie