Dismissed

Smt.Reji John v. the Joint Registrar (General)

Kerala HC8 Nov 2016WP(C)/8670/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a member of a Rubber Marketing Society, filed a writ petition alleging the society failed statutory audits from 2002. Court directed the Registrar to consider the petition after hearing both parties and allow the society to place audit records within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directs Registrar to hear both parties before acting; allows society two months to place audit records.

Smt.Reji John Vs the Joint Registrar (General) — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 8670 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SMT.REJI JOHN, PUTHIYEDATHU HOUSE, KODENCHERRI P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE JOINT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

2. THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.NO.F.1879, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

R2 BY ADVS. SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM

¶13

SRI.V.J.JAMES

¶14

R1 BY SRI.B.VINOD, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 8670 of 2012 (G)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.10.2011.

¶21

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.02.2012 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

P.A TO JUDGE

¶25

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶26

W.P.(C).No.8670 of 2012

¶27

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Petitioner is a member of the 2^nd respondent Rubber Marketing Society. This writ petition was filed in the year 2012. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent failed to conduct the statutory audit from the year 2002 onwards. Petitioner raised his grievance before the 1^st respondent by Ext.P2.

¶30

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would submit that the audit of the 2^nd respondent society is up to date and audit for the year 2015-2016 is going on. In such circumstance, I am of the view that the 1^st respondent shall consider Ext.P2 after hearing the petitioner and 2^nd respondent and it is open for the 2^nd respondent to place the relevant records before the 1^st respondent to substantiate that the audit is conducted. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE) TRUE COPY

¶33

P.A TO JUDGE

¶34

Smt.Reji John v. the Joint Registrar (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Reji John v. the Joint Registrar (General)

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

Mariyam Poulo Vs M.G Rajamanickam IAS

Paulose Vs Mohanan

Smt.Bindu John Vs P.Sreejith

Valluvanad Hospital Complex Limited Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

S.Ajith Kumar Vs the Joint Registrar (General)