Partly allowed

P.Sankarankutty Achari v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Feb 2019WP(C)/756/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court set aside the District Registrar's acceptance of office bearers and accounts from a society due to violation of natural justice and a prior judgment. Matter remitted for fresh consideration. Status quo restored.

What did the court decide?

Impugned decision set aside; status quo restored; matter remitted to 2nd respondent for fresh hearing within 6 weeks after hearing all parties.

P.Sankarankutty Achari Vs State of Kerala — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 756 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 P.SANKARANKUTTY ACHARI AGED 75 YEARS S/O.K.S.PARAMESWARAN ACHARY, KURUVIKKATTIL, ASWATHY, ANCHALPETTY, KAKKOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 GOPALAKRISHNAN.M.K. AGED 55 YEARS S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, MALAYIL PUTHENPURAYIL, KUREEKAD P.O., THIRUVANKULAM - 682 305.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) O/O.THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

3 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION O/O THE I.G. OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶14

4 VISWABRAHMANA SAMOOHAM KERALA STATE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT N.M.SURESH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.MANIKANDAN ACHARI, NADUVILEKANDATHIL HOUSE, VETTIKAL P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 314.

¶15

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.HARIDAS

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3, SRI.P.HARIDAS FOR R4

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

::2::

¶20

WP(C).No. 756 of 2019

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶22

W.P(C).No.756 Of 2019

¶23

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2019.

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The prayers in the above Writ Petition

¶26

(Civil) are as follows:

¶27

“I]. Call for records leading to Exts-P4 and P5 and set aside acceptance of list of Office bearers and Accounts submitted by the 4^th respondent, by the 2^nd respondent,

¶28

II]. Direct 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit-P6 representation, after hearing petitioners and 4^th respondent,

¶29

III].Direct respondents to pay cost of this writ petition to the petitioner and

¶30

IV]. Issue such other Writ, Order or Direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶31

2. Heard Sri.P.M.Mohammad Shiraz, learned

¶32

counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Saigi Jacob

¶33

Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader

¶34

appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and

¶35

Sri.P.Haridas, learned Standing Counsel appearing

¶36

for contesting respondent No.4.

¶37

::3::

¶38

WP(C).No. 756 of 2019

¶39

3. In Ext.P-2 judgment rendered by this Court on 30.7.2018 in W.P.(C).No.25504/2018 filed by the 4^th respondent herein, this Court had directed the 2^nd respondent-District Registrar concerned, who is the notified Registrar of the registered Society concerned, to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner therein/R-4 herein as well as the objectors like the 2^nd petitioner herein and then take a considered decision on the question as to

¶40

the acceptance or otherwise of list of committee members and office bearers and Annual Balance Sheet submitted by the said writ petitioner/R-4 herein in respect of the said registered Society as envisaged under the enabling provisions contained in Secs.4 & 13 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies

¶41

Registration Act, 1955, within the time limit mentioned therein. Now, it appears that in purported compliance of the direction issued by

¶42

::4::

¶43

WP(C).No. 756 of 2019

¶44

this Court in Ext.P-2, the 2^nd respondent-notified Registrar has accepted the list submitted by the 4^th respondent as referred to in Exts.P-5(2) and P-5(3) etc., in the year 2017-18, but without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the 2^nd petitioner herein. This Court has specifically directed the 2^nd respondent-District Registrar as per Ext.P-2 judgment that not only the writ petitioner therein/R-4 herein but also the 2^nd petitioner herein should also be heard before a decision in that regard is taken and certain other directions were also passed on the summary enquiry that has been contemplated by necessary decision as directed by the Apex Court. The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 6.2.2019 wherein it is stated that due to inadvertent error on the part of the said respondent, both the writ petitioners therein/R-4 herein as well as the 2^nd petitioner herein were not heard before taking a decision to accept

¶45

::5::

¶46

WP(C).No. 756 of 2019

¶47

annual returns, which resulted in the acceptance of Exts.P-5 (2) list and P-5(3) Annual Balance Sheet, etc. Therefore, it is only to be held

¶48

that the said action of the 2^nd respondent is in blatant violation of the judgment dated 30.7.2018 of this Court in W.P(C).No.25504/2018 and the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the abovesaid decision in accepting the list of office bearers and Annual Balance Sheet as per Ext.P-5(2) and P-5(3) herein will stand set aside

¶49

and the matter will stand remitted to the 2^nd respondent-District Registrar for

¶50

consideration of the entire issue afresh, after affording a reasonably opportunity of being heard not only to the writ petitioner therein/R-4 herein but also to the 2^nd petitioner herein and any other affected parties as has been ordered in

¶51

Ext.P-2 judgment. Consequently, it is ordered that status quo which prevailed as regards the said Society prior to the said impugned decision

¶52

::6::

¶53

WP(C).No. 756 of 2019

¶54

will stand restored for the time being, until the matter is decided afresh by the 2^nd respondent consequent to this remit. A decision in this regard should be duly rendered by the 2^nd respondent strictly in accordance with law and following the abovesaid principles of natural justice and in accordance with Ext.P-2 judgment without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶55

With these observations and directions the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶56

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶57

bkn/-

¶58

::7::

¶59

WP(C).No. 756 of 2019

¶60

APPENDIX

¶61

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶62

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 22/11/2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶63

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30/07/2018 IN WP(C) NO.25504/2018.

¶64

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 28/09/2018 IN I.A.NO.14547/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.25504/2018.

¶65

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 09/11/2018 OF STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANNEXURES THERETO.

¶66

EXHIBIT P5 LETTER DATED 21/11/2018 OF STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANNEXURES THERETO.

¶67

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 01/12/2018 OF PETITIONERS.

P.Sankarankutty Achari v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sankarankutty Achari 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suharabi, Vs the District Collector

Joseph Thomas, Vs the Tahsildar

Sabu Varghese Vs the Sub Registrar

Geetha Vs the State of Kerala

St.Sebastians Church Vs the Secretary, Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayath

C.Sarojini, Vs the State of Kerala