Disposed

Ashraf Panayathil , v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2022WP(C)/4924/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP(C) No. 4924 of 2022, the High Court of Kerala declined to adjudicate merits regarding the cancellation of a no-confidence motion pending a statutory appeal. It directed the State Secretary to expeditiously consider and pass orders on the consequential stay petition within three weeks. The court explicitly left all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition within three weeks with notice to the opposite side.

Ashraf Panayathil , Vs State of Kerala — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4924 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ASHRAF PANAYATHIL , AGED 44 YEARS PANAYATHIL HOUSE, PALAKKAPARAMBU, CHIRAYIL P.O. , MALAPPURAM 673 638. 2 AHAMMED KABEER PERUMBILAYI, PARAMMAL HOUSE, POTHUVATTIPPARA, NEDIYIRUPPU P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 638. 3 SAKEER KUTTAN KAVIL, ARIPPATTHODY HOUSE, MELEPARAMBU, CHIRAYIL P.O. ,MALAPPURAM 673 638. 4 MOOSA KAVUNGAL AREEKKATTU, KAVUNGAL AREEKATTU HOUSE, COLONY ROAD, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 638. 5 SAISALAVI PRINKDAKKATU (BAVA), BASIL MANZIL HOUSE, KODANGAD, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 638. 6 HARIDASAN CHERI, VELATTUPURAI HOUSE, MUSLIYARANGADI, NEDIYIRUPPU P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 638. 7 ABIDA AYYOLI, AYYOLI HOUSE, KARIMUKKU ROAD, KOTTUKKARA, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 638. 8 FATHIMA KARALIL, KARALIL HOUSE, CHIRAYIL MUKKOOD, CHIRAYIL P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 638. BY ADVS. DIPU.R K.S.BAIJU DEVI KRIPA R. P.V.SARITHA VENUGOPAL NEETHU SASI DHANYA BABU

¶8

WP(C) NO. 4924 OF 2022 -2-

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1	STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO -OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2	THE REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KERALA, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3	THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL), MALAPPURAM, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), B2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 505.
4	ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL), KONDOTTY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO -OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL) KONDOTTY P.O, MALAPPURAM 673 638.
5	KERALA STATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY CO - OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE CO - OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, 3RD FLOOR, CO - BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN, P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
6	THE NEDIYIRUPPU SERVICE CO -OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO. D-1934,
	REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 638.
7	MUNDASSERI MUJEEB RAHMAN, MANGATTU HOUSE, MUSLIYARANGADI, NEDIYIRUPPU P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 638. SRI. SHAMEER P.M, GOVT. PLEADER

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶13

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.4924 of 2022

¶14

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2022

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

The motion of no-confidence moved against the

¶17

second respondent was passed by the Committee. The same was cancelled by the third respondent-Joint Registrar as

¶18

per Ext.P5 order dated 12.01.2022. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed Ext.P6 appeal and Ext.P7 stay petition before the first respondent. The petitioner seeks for expeditious orders in the stay petition.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on Section 28(AB) of the Co-operative Societies Act read with Section 2(n) and the judgment of this Court in Mattachan v. Joint Registrar [2006 (2) KLT 45] contends that a motion of no-confidence can be maintained against any member of the Committee and that Ext.P5 order cannot be sustained.

¶21

W.P.(C) No.4924 of 2022

¶22

I do not propose to go into the merits of the

¶23

contentions in the light of the pendency of the statutory appeal. All the contentions of the parties are left open.

¶24

Writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 stay petition, with due notice to the opposite side, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4924/2022

¶30

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶31

Exhibit P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION WITH O. 01/1470/2019/E (1), S.C.E.C. DATED 05.10.2019 ALONG WITH ORDER.
Exhibit P2	THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 02.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT BANK TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES BOOK OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER WITH FILE NO. JRMPM/1935/2021- CRPI, DATED 12/01/2022.
Exhibit P6	THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 24.01.2022 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	THE TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 24.01.2022 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	THE TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT WITH NO. RL964673809 IN.
Exhibit P9	THE TRUE COPY OF TRACK CONSIGNMENT STATUS OF RL 964673809 IN.

Ashraf Panayathil , v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf Panayathil , 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ninu Babu, Vs the Central Board Secondary Eduction

Pradeep C.K. Vs Regional Transport Authority

Santhosh Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Binoy Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Shameer R. Vs State of Kerala

Froiden Diaz Vs the Secretary