A.Surya vs The Alleppey Co-Operative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7902 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

     MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.7296 OF 2014(J)


PETITIONER:

               A.SURYA
               JUNIOR ASSISTANT, ALLEPPEY CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING
               MILLS LTD., KAREELAKULANGARA P.O., KAYAMKULAM,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE ALLEPPEY CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD.
               REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER/MANAGING DIRECTOR,
               KAREELAKULANGARA P.O. - 690 572, KAYAMKULAM,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

      2        THE CHAIRMAN
               THE ALLEPPEY CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS
               LTD.,KAREELAKULANGARA P.O. - 690 572, KAYAMKULAM,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.7296 OF 2014(J)                     2



                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of March, 2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

[i]. Issue a writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ or order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P3 and P5 issued by the 1 st respondent declare that the said proceedings were issued by the 1 st respondent only to harass and victimize the petitioner and hence illegal and arbitrary and

(ii) Declare that the petitioner has been kept out of service illegally and arbitrarily and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the service immediately; and

(iii) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow the writ petition with cost.

2. The basic contentions put forth by the petitioner makes it clear that

petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P5 communications issued by the 1 st

respondent i.e., the Alleppey Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited. Going

through Exts.P3 and P5 dated 15.1.2014 and 28.1.2014 respectively, what I

could gather is that both were communications issued to the petitioner by the

1st respondent, directing to produce the basic qualification certificate of the

petitioner in order to consider promotion in accordance with the Rules of the 1 st

respondent Society.

3. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is

nothing to be considered since petitioner had to oblige with the requirements

sought for in Exts.P3 and P5 for his own benefit.

Therefore, the writ petition has no sustenance and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

                                                     SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                      JUDGE


                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.02.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT THEREIN.

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO DATED 06.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE RESPONDENT MILL TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.01.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.02.2014 SEND TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.