Partly allowed

N.D. Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jun 2016WP(C)/5527/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to decide on pending resolutions regarding the petitioner's contract appointment as secretary for a bank within one month and stayed the execution of a termination order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to take a decision on the resolutions and recommendation within one month; stay of execution of termination order pending decision.

N.D. Joseph Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/6TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5527 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

N.D. JOSEPH, NADUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KARUMPALAMATTOM, KARIMANNOOR PO, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶13

4. THE KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED NO.E 1192, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686 691, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶14

R1-3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY

¶15

SRI.JOSHY THANNICKAMATTAM

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 5527 of 2016 (M)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE SRI.VARGHESE ANTONY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶22

P1(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1.

¶23

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN RESOLUTION NO.2 DT 3-5-2014.

¶24

P2(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2.

¶25

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/VALUATION OFFICER.

¶26

P3(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3.

¶27

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRESIDENT DT 28-5-2014.

¶28

P4(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4.

¶29

P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1B DT 29-5-2014.

¶30

P5(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5.

¶31

P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶32

P6(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6.

¶33

P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT 27-4-2015 VIDE NO.6 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶34

P7(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7

¶35

P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CLT(3)9972/2015(1) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 26-9-2015.

¶36

P8(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P8.

¶37

P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE GENERAL BODY AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 17-10-2015 IN RESOLUTION NO.7

¶38

P9(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P9.

¶39

P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN RESOLUTION NO.6 AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 16-12-2015

.....2/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 5527 of 2016 (M)

¶44

P10(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P10.

¶45

P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 25-11-2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶46

P11(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P11.

¶47

P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK DATED 3/3/16

¶48

P13: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18/3/16.

¶49

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶50

R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6/2/16 ISSUED BY THE R3.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶55

W.P.(C)NO.5527 OF 2016

¶56

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2016

¶57

J U D G M E N T

¶58

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P6 and P8 and also for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P10 filed by the fourth respondent seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner on contract basis taking into consideration of Ext.P11 recommendation of the third respondent and for other related reliefs.

¶59

Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus:-

¶60

Petitioner was appointed as secretary on contract basis by the fourth respondent bank and though approval was sought for to the said appointment, second respondent declined the same. However, no formal order was issued in this regard. But the second respondent communicated this decision to the third respondent. Though the

¶61

W.P.(C)NO.5527 OF 2016 2

¶62

resolution passed by the society namely., Exts.P7 and P10 along with Ext.P11 recommendation of the third respondent is pending before the first respondent, the first respondent has not taken a decision so far. Non disposal of the said resolution and said recommendation are the subject matter of this writ petition.

¶63

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and respective counsel appearing for the other respondent. The subject matter of issue raised in this writ petition is pending at large before the first respondent and therefore it is for the first respondent to take a decision being a statutory authority. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that quietus can be given to this writ petition by issuing appropriate direction to the first respondent.

¶64

Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on Exts.P7 and P10 resolutions submitted by the third respondent bank and Ext.P11 recommendation made by the joint registrar within a period of one month from the date of receipt of

¶65

¶66

W.P.(C)NO.5527 OF 2016

¶67

a copy of this judgment. When the writ petition is pending before this court, operation and execution of Ext.P13 was directed to be stayed for a period of three months which expires on 28.06.2016. Therefore, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo in pursuance of Ext.P3 till such a decision is taken by the first respondent.

¶68

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶69

sd/-

¶70

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶71

R.AV

N.D. Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.D. Joseph v. State of Kerala

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

Baby Sarojam Vs Olarikkara Ksheer Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham

Koppam Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No. 1205 Vs State of Kerala

Jayaprakasan N Vs District Co-Operative Bank

R.Sivakumar Vs State of Kerala

The Mulloor Rural Co-Operative Society Vs the State of Kerala

D.Gopinathan Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative