Kundara Ksheera Vyavasaya ... vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17525 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 17163 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

              KUNDARA KSHEERA VYAVASAYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
              LIMITED NO. Q-88, KUNDARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
              PIN-691 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE.

              BY ADV ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN


RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
              TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT,
              GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

     2        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
              MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001

     3        THE DAIRY EXTENSION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DAIRY
              EXTENSION OFFICER, CHERUMOODU, KANJIRODE, KUNDARA P.O,
              KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 501

     4        THE DAIRY EXTENSION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIARY
              EXTENSION OFFICER, MUKHATHALA, MUKHATHALA P.O,
              KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 577

     5        PERUMPUZHA-G- MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
              LIMITED NO.Q-318(D), PERUMPUZHA P.O, KUNDARA,
              KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 504, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

              BY SR.GP BIMAL.K.NATH


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 17163/21                           2




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner, which is a Co-operative Society operating

under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and

Rules, has approached this Court impugning Exhibit P7 order of the

second respondent-Deputy Director of Dairy Development

Department, as per which, they have been directed to relocate

their Sub Centre/Collection Centre, on the allegation that it is

within the area of operation of the fifth respondent Society.

2. The petitioner says that the contents of Exhibit P7 are

without factual basis and that, as a matter of fact, the Sub

Centre/Collection Centre in question is situated within their own

area of operation. They say that, however, without causing any

enquiry, but squarely based on the unsubstantiated complaint

preferred by the fifth respondent, the second respondent has now

issued Exhibit P7 and therefore, prayed that same be set aside.

3. I have heard Sri.Anchal C.Vijayan, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri.Bimal K.Nath, learned Senior Government

Pleader, appearing for the official respondents.

4. In view of the directions that I propose to issue in this

writ petition, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the fifth

respondent, since they will not, in any manner, cause any detriment

to them.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that

Exhibit P7 has been issued only because the fifth respondent has

raised a complaint that the Sub Centre/ Collection Centre being

operated by the petitioner Society is within its area of operation.

However, to a pointed question, he conceded that the second

respondent has not caused any investigation while issuing Exhibit

P7 and added that if this Court is so inclined, said authority is

willing to reconsider the matter, after hearing both sides.

6. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without

doubt that Exhibit P7 has proceeded as if the complaint of the fifth

respondent is completely true. However, going by the provisions of

the Act and Rules, an enquiry ought to have been conducted by the

second respondent, before he could have taken a decision that the

complaint of the fifth respondent was accurate. But without even

doing so, he has concluded in Exhibit P7 that the Sub Centre/

Collection Centre being operated by the petitioner Society, is

detrimental to the interests of the fifth respondent Society. It is

needless to say that the second respondent could not have entered

into such a conclusion without having caused a proper enquiry.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set

aside Exhibit P7; with a consequential direction to the second

respondent to hear both the petitioner and fifth respondent and

then take a decision on the complaint of the latter, resulting in an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as possible, but not

later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

At this time, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed

that when the second respondent completes the exercise as

ordered above, Exhibit P6 may also be directed to be taken note of.

It goes without saying that second respondent will cause an

enquiry after looking into all relevant aspects and after adverting

to all applicable inputs, including Exhibit P6 or any other, that may

be placed before the said officer by the rival parties.

Sd/-

Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17163/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RENT FOR THE YEAR 2021-2022.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3/264/2019 DATED 27.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.09.2020.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 13.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER-SOCIETY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23109/2020 DATED 30.10.2020.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.02.2021.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A3/264/2019 DATED 25.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER-SOCIETY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.07.2021.