Remanded

Paliyode Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. v. the Dairy Extension of Officer

Kerala HC25 Nov 2016WP(C)/1884/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed orders dismissing a revision petition for delay. Directions were issued to the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal to entertain and dispose of the revision within six months as the petitioner had shown sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; Tribunal directed to entertain revision and decide it within six months.

Paliyode Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1884 of 2014 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

PALIYODE KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD. NO.T-56(D), APCOS, PALIYODE, KOTTAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DAIRY EXTENSION OFFICER, PARUMKADAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA,

¶11

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. Y.SUNDARESAN, VARUVILA VEEDU, KOTTAKKAL P.O.,

¶13

PERUMKADAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. POOJA SURENDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.KARUNAKARAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C).No. 1884 of 2014 (I)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 11/5/2010 IN ARC.NO.1/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ARBITRATOR. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM UNDER SEC.84 OF THE KERALA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED AS I.A.NO.162/2013 IN EXT.P2 REVISION PETITION. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2013 IN I.A.NO.162/2013 IN R.P.NO.57/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2013 IN R.P.NO.57/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 1884 of 2014

¶29

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

1.This writ petition is filed by a co-operative society aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision filed before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananathapuram, and the consequential Ext.P5 order, dismissing the revision petition.

¶32

2.This Court, in Thajuddin Shameer v. Secretary Coastal Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2004 (1) KLT 909], held that if a revision is filed beyond 90 days, the petitioner should explain in the revision, the reason for the delay and no separate petition to condone the delay is necessary.

¶33

3.The tribunal has to consider whether there is laches on the part of the person moving revision. In this case, the delay was about 205 days. The petitioner, in the

¶34

..2..

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 1884 of 2014

¶36

affidavit, has explained the reason for the delay in filing the revision. Since there is no limitation prescribed, when sufficient cause has been shown, this Court is of the view that the revision petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of laches and such explanation for delay has to be accepted. When law does not prescribe that sufficient cause has to be proved, it is for the tribunal to accept the reasonable cause stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay petition.

¶37

4.In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside. The tribunal is directed to entertain the revision and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner and all affected parties.

¶38

5.The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶40

bka/-

Paliyode Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. v. the Dairy Extension of Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paliyode Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. v. the Dairy Extension of Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Benedict Benny Vs Beegam Thahira

The Public Information Officer Vs Joseph Benedict Benny

Muthoot Cine Enterprises Vs L.Sathi

Nasiya Vs Rajan

Soman Vs Saji Kumar

Biju Issac Vs the Pilicode Service Co-Operative