Dismissed

Joseph Thomas v. Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Kerala HC18 Aug 2016WP(C)/20413/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging a charge memo issued by a Registrar of Cooperative Societies after the administrator's term expired was dismissed. The court held the term was validly extended via government order, granting the Registrar jurisdiction. The petitioner retains liberty to contest the proceedings, which the court directed be completed within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Liberty granted to petitioner to contest proceedings. Respondents directed to complete proceedings within three months.

Joseph Thomas Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/27TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20413 of 2013 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

JOSEPH THOMAS,

¶8

SECRETARY (UNDER SUSPENSION), IDUKKI DISTRICT MOTOR EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. I- 191, KATTAPPANA.

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN SMT.A.RAJESWARI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, UDUMBANCHOLA, PIN- 685 554.

¶12

2. IDUKKI DISTRICT MOTOR EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. I-191, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI 685 508.

¶13

3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), IDUKKI 685 603.

¶14

4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶15

R1, R3 & R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.PAUL VARGHESE

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Msd.

¶19

WP(C).No. 20413 of 2013 (B)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO S.C.T M./4026/2012 DATED 16-07-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A.1/2013 DATED 09-03-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. S.C.T.M/4026/12 DATED 14-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO S.C.T.M/4026/12 DATED 22-02-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO WITH ITS COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 01-08-2013

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶28

EXHIBIT R2(A): THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.G.O.(P)NO.135/2013/CO-OP. DATED 28.10.2013 SHOWING THE EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD OF THE PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.20413 of 2013

¶34

Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P5, and also to declare that 1^st respondent has no authority to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

¶37

Petitioner, who is the Secretary of the 2^nd respondent Society, was placed under suspension by the Parttime Administrator. The term of the Part-time Administrator expired on 15.07.2013. However, without any jurisdiction or authority, 1^st respondent, after expiry of his term, issued a charge memo to the petitioner, and the same is clearly politically motivated move. Since the term of the Part-time Administrator is fixed as one year under Article 243ZL of the Constitution, no further extension is possible. The election was delayed by the 1^st respondent and steps are taken to conduct disciplinary proceedings and terminate the service of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the entire action

¶38

W.P.(C) No.20413 of 2013 2

¶39

initiated by the 1^st respondent is illegal and arbitrary. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed.

¶40

Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that, as per Ext.P4 order, the Administrator was appointed on 22.02.2013 and continued till 15.07.2013. Thereafter, as per G.O.(P) No.135/2013/Co-op. dated 28.10.2013, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was permitted to extend the period of the Part-time Administrator for a further period of one year from 16^th July, 2013 to 15^th July, 2014, or till a newly elected committee enters upon office, whichever is earlier, to avoid administrative vacuum in the Society, evident from Ext.R2(a). It is stated that the term of the Administrator is extended with effect from 16.07.2013, and therefore the Administrator is competent and powerful enough to issue Ext.P5 charge memo to the petitioner. Accordingly, 2^nd respondent seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent Society.

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) No.20413 of 2013

¶44

The sole question raised in this writ petition is with respect to the power of the 1^st respondent to issue Ext.P5 charge memo to the petitioner. As discussed above, in terms of Ext.R2(a), the term of the 1^st respondent was extended for a period of one year from 16.07.2013 to 15.07.2014. Therefore, the action initiated by the 1^st respondent on 01.08.2013 by issuing Ext.P5 charge memo, is within the realm of power of the 1^st respondent. Therefore, I do not find any illegal circumstances to interfere with Ext.P5 charge memo issued by the 1^st respondent, by exercising the power of discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

However, petitioner will be at liberty to file suitable objection to Ext.P5 charge memo and participate in the proceedings in accordance with law. Second respondent shall ensure that appropriate opportunity is provided to the petitioner to contest the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5. Since the subject matter is pending before this Court from the year 2013 and Ext.P5 charge memo is dated 01.08.2013, I think it is only appropriate that a direction is given to the respondents to complete the proceedings in Ext.P5 within a time frame.

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C) No.20413 of 2013

¶48

Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving open liberty of the petitioner to contest the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 charge memo, and the competent among the respondents is directed to complete the proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶50

//true copy//

¶51

P.S. to Judge

¶52

St/18.08.2016

Joseph Thomas v. Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Thomas v. Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Jerone Vs State of Kerala

N.K.Mohanan Vs the Joint Registrar

John Vs the Assistant Registrar Arbitration and Execution Office

A.K.Thajudeen Vs the Regional Transport Authority

M.a.Kharim Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Vitty Thomas Vs the Secretary