Dismissed

Aliyamma Geroge, v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Kerala HC18 Mar 2022WA/307/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenges a Single Judge's dismissal of a petition against the disqualification of an appellant from a cooperative society committee. The court found that since notice issuance was disputed, the Single Judge rightly excluded judicial interference and directed the appellant to pursue statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed. No judicial interference is granted as the matter involves a question of fact regarding notice issuance, ascertainable through statutory remedies.

Aliyamma Geroge, Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶7

WA NO. 307 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2022 IN WP(C)NO.4559/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:

¶10

1 ALIYAMMA GEROGE, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.T.V.GEORGE, THACHIRIKKAL HOUSE, ERUMBAMUTTI, PALAKKAYAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN CODE-678 591. BY ADVS.

¶11

GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) NISHA GEORGE ARUN CHANDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNNATHURMEDU, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678 013.

¶14

2 THE MACHAMTHODE AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.P1331, THACHAMPARA POST OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678 591, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

3 THE PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR, THE MACHAMTHODE AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.P1331, THACHAMPARA POST OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PINCODE-678 591.

¶16

4 HIRAN M.P., JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNNATHURMEDU, CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD - 678 013.

¶17

¶18

Writ Appeal No.307 of 2022

¶19

SRI.V.K.SUNIL SR. GP SRI.C.P.SABARI R4

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

Writ Appeal No.307 of 2022

¶23

P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.

¶24

Writ Appeal No.307 of 2022

¶25

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2022

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

¶28

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No.4559 of 2022. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶29

The appellant was a member of the Managing Committee of the second respondent, a co-operative society registered and functioning under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act) and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (the Rules). As per Ext.P6 order, the appellant was declared disqualified to be a member of the Managing Committee of the Society. The disqualification was in terms of

¶30

¶31

Writ Appeal No.307 of 2022

¶32

Rule 44(2)(a) read with Rule 44(1)(c) of the Rules. Ext.P6 order was under challenge in the writ petition mainly on the ground that the appellant has not been given notice in terms of the proviso to Rule 44(2)(a) of the Rules requiring her to pay the defaulted amount.

¶33

A counter affidavit was filed by respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition stating, among others, that the appellant has been issued notice in terms of the proviso to Rule 44(2)(a) of the Rules. The copies of the postal receipt evidencing issuance of the notice and the postal acknowledgement card signed by the appellant evidencing receipt of the same were produced along with the counter affidavit. Even though an interlocutory application was filed by the appellant as I.A.No.1 of 2022 to call for the originals of the postal receipt and the postal acknowledgement card, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition leaving open the rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate statutory remedy against Ext.P6 order. The appellant is aggrieved by the

¶34

Writ Appeal No.307 of 2022

¶35

¶36

said decision of the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶38

As noted, while the appellant maintains that

¶39

she was not issued with a notice in terms of the proviso to Rule 44(2)(a) of the Rules, respondents 2 and 3 assert that the appellant has been issued the said notice. In other words, what is to be resolved is a question of fact. We are therefore, unable to find fault with the learned Single Judge in relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy available to her under the statute for redressal of the grievance voiced in the writ petition.

¶40

In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the

¶41

writ appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.