The Board Of Directors Of The ... vs The Diary Extension Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 6413 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

   TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.21188 OF 2020(W)


PETITIONER/S:

                THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PALLIKKUNNU
                KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD.
                NO.D 1940, APCOS, PALLIKKUNNU P.O.,
                WAYANAD DISTRICT,PIN-673122,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.P.P.JACOB
                SMT.MARIYAM JACOB

RESPONDENTS :

      1         THE DIARY EXTENSION OFFICER,
                DEPARTMENT OF DIARY, PANAMARAM VILLAGE,
                WAYANAD-670721.

      2         THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT (C)BLOCK,
                CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD,
                KALPPATTA NORTH, WAYANAD-673121.

      3         PRASOON.P,
                AMBALAKKARA HOUSE, ARINCHERMALA,
                PANAMARAM VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY-670721.



                SMT MABLE C KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
23.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.21188 OF 2020                   2




                                 JUDGMENT

The former Directors of the Pallikkunnu Ksheerolpadaka

Sahakarana Sangham Ltd.D 1940 has approached this Court seeking to

quash Exhibit-P6 notice issued by the 2nd respondent and for a further

direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to extend the balance financial

assistance that are offered to be extended while including the Society in

the Scheme.

2. Sri. P.P.Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, the

Secretary of the Society has issued Ext.P7 notice to a certain Prasoon

and he was informed of the intention of the managing committee to

terminate the lease and to hand over possession of the plant and

machinery back to the society. According to the learned counsel, in

view of the above, the directions in Ext.P6 has been complied with. The

learned counsel requests that the writ petition be closed in view of the

above turn of events.

3. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P6

show cause notice was issued when it was found that the plant and

machinery purchased using the State funds was leased out to private

persons without authorisation and the society was asked to utilize the

plant and machinery for the purpose to which it was intended. The

Managing Committee was later superseded invoking Section 32 of the

Act and the Administrator was put in charge. It is contended that

though Ext.P6 was issued, the directions have not been complied with

till date as the lessee approached the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta and filed

O.S.No.294 of 2020 and has secured an order of injunction against

dispossessing him.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced. I find that what

has been challenged in this case is a show cause notice whereby the

Secretary of the Society was ordered to terminate the lease and to

utilize the plant for the purpose to which it was intended. I do not

think that a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can

be maintained against a show cause notice. Now that the petitioner has

responded to the said notice, it is for the petitioner to exhaust his

remedies in accordance with law against action, if any, initiated.

This writ petition is closed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE DSV

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1 DATED 25.5.2019 OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY DATED 27.12.2019.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE SOCIETY WITH THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 16.6.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 6.8.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18.8.2020.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 24.9.2020.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY TO THE LESSEE PRASOON DATED 14/10/2020.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE