IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SHANAVAS P.P,AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. APPUNNI MARATH, RESIDING AT PADINHARE PURAKKAL,
VATTAPPARAMBU, CHALIYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK,
KOCHIKDOE DISTRICT 673 301.
BY ADVS.
J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SUMEEN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO
-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 001.
2 THE KARUVANTHIRUTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.
D.2638, KARUVANTHIRUTHY, FEROKE , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
673 631, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673
004.
4 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES KOZHIKODE OFFICE OF JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT 673 004.
BY ADVS.
P.P.JACOB
MARIYAM JACOB
SMT PARVATHY K-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that Ext.P1 order, placing him under suspension by the Secretary of the 2nd respondent Bank, is supported by no reason and has been issued in a reckless manner, without verifying whether such a drastic action was necessary.
2. Sri.Prem Navas - learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that even going by the allegations levelled against his client, an order of suspension was completely unnecessary; but that this was never been considered and it has been issued in a mechanical manner, merely because the Secretary obtains statutory competence to have done so. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that Ext.P1 be set aside.
3. Smt.Maria.T.T - learned counsel WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022 3 representing the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, submitted that the petitioner has no locus to challenge Ext.P1 before this Court since he obtains an alternative effective remedy of making a representation against it. She added that if the petitioner does so, certainly, the competent Authority will consider it, with particular reference to his contention that an order of suspension was not necessary in the factual circumstances presented. She, however, prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations in favour of the petitioner.
4. I find substantial force in the afore submissions of Smt.Mariya.T.T because, before this Court can exercise judicial review, the action of the Authority will have to be tested through the alternative efficacious remedy available.
WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022 4
5. It is without doubt that the petitioner can always represent against Ext.P1 before the competent Authority and I am firm that the petitioner must complete that process also, before he can approach this Court.
6. Resultantly, I leave liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation against Ext.P1, edificed on all his contentions as he may be entitled to make; and if this is done before the competent Authority within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered, after affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one week thereafter.
7. Needless to say, I have not considered the merits of any of the rival contentions of the parties and they are all left open to be WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022 5 pursued by them appropriately, if it become so warranted in future after the afore exercise.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18003/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER PASSED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.5.2022.