Dismissed

The President, Trivandrum Co-Operative District Wholesale Society Ltd. v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Kerala HC14 Feb 2018WA/1650/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against an order quashing a writ petition. The court held that since no action was proposed against the present managing committee, the appellant was not a person aggrieved, and the writ petition was rightly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed. The writ petition is held to have been correctly dismissed as the appellant is not a person aggrieved.

The President, Trivandrum Co-Operative District… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WA.No. 1650 of 2017 IN WPC. 11699/2017

¶6

----------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11699/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 11-07-2017

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶8

THE PRESIDENT TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE DISTRICT WHOLESALE SOCIETY LTD.NO.4, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SMT.T.RESHMA SMT.S.SIKKY SRI.HARISANKAR N.UNNI

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE

¶14

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

vpv

¶16

P.N.RAVINDRAN & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.

¶17

=-=-==-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶18

W.A.No.1650 of 2017

¶19

=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

P.N.Ravindran, J.

¶23

The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.11699 of 2017 on the files of this court. He had in the said writ petition prayed for the following reliefs:

¶24

“i) declare that Ext.P1 is totally illegal and misconceived and that no proceedings can be initiated against the present managing committee on the basis of Ext.P3 report submitted 4 years prior to the assumption of office by the present managing committee and so Ext.P1 is only to be quashed ;

¶25

ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order direction calling for the records leading to Ext P1 and quash the same ;

¶26

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction directing the respondent not to initiate any action against the present managing committee on the basis of Ext.P3 ;

¶27

iv) such other appropriate writ order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

¶28

The aforesaid reliefs were sought on the allegation that the

¶29

issuance of Ext.P1 notice, more than four years after the submission of

¶30

Ext.P3 report is vitiated by ulterior motives and is malafide. It is contended that there is nothing in Ext.P3 report against the members of the managing committee of the Trivandrum Co-operative District Wholesale Society Ltd. No.4, who were elected in the elections held on

¶31

W.A.No.1650 of 2017

¶32

-:2:-

¶33

20.3.2016.

¶34

When the writ petition came up for consideration before the learned single Judge, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that no action is proposed either in Ext.P1 order or in Ext.P2 against the managing committee of the society presently in office and that the action proposed in Exts.P1 and P3 is against the members of the previous managing committee. In the light of the said submission, the learned single Judge held that the writ petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved and consequently dismissed the writ petition. The appellant has, aggrieved thereby, filed this appeal.

¶35

When this appeal came up for consideration before us on 8.2.2018, after hearing learned counsel on both sides, we directed the learned Government Pleader to ascertain and submit whether it was a copy of Ext.P3 which was enclosed along with Exts.P1 and P2 or whether it was another report that was enclosed along with Exts.P1 and P2. We also directed the learned Government Pleader to make available to us a copy of the report dated 21.3.2014 referred to in Exts.P1 and P2. By that order we also adjourned the appeal to today.

¶36

When this appeal came up for consideration today, learned Government Pleader handed over to us a copy of the letter dated 21.3.2014 sent by the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies in charge of Co-operative Vigilance Officer to the Registrar of Co-

¶37

W.A.No.1650 of 2017

¶38

-:3:-

¶39

operative Societies enclosing with it the recommendations of the Cooperative Vigilance Officer/Deputy Inspector General of Police. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the report referred to in the letter dated 21.3.2014 is the same as Ext.P3. He also submitted that in Exts.P1, P2 and P3 and in the letter dated 21.3.2014, no action is proposed against the present managing committee. In the light of the said submission, we are of the opinion that the apprehension entertained by the appellant/writ petitioner is misconceived and without merit. We are therefore in agreement with the learned single Judge that the appellant/writ petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved. The writ petition was in our opinion rightly dismissed by the learned single Judge.

¶40

We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.N.RAVINDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶46

/true copy/

¶47

P.A. To Judge

¶48

vpv

The President, Trivandrum Co-Operative District Wholesale Society Ltd. v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The President, Trivandrum Co-Operative District Wholesale Society Ltd. v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

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

Soordas K Vs K.P.Rajkumar

T.P.Constructions Vs the Chief Engineer

Chacko Thomas Vs George Thomas

Santhakumari Vs Devaki Amma

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs P.M Hassan

Export Inspection Council Vs M.T.Babu