Kerala High Court
The Managing Committee Of ... vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 25 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA,
1943
WA NO. 1393 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15825/2021 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF PALLIKKUNNU SERVICE CO-
OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.C.350
SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.C.350,
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, CHALAD.P.O,
KANNUR-670014.
BY ADVS.
P.N.MOHANAN
C.P.SABARI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL)
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, KANNUR-670001.
2 T.K.DHANIL,
RAJANI, MANAL, CHALAD, KANNUR,
PIN-670008.
3 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, OFFICE OF THE
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION,
THYCAUD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
Writ Appeal No.1393 of 2021 -2-
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.T.K.VIPINDAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Writ Appeal No.1393 of 2021 -3-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.1393 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 21.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No.15825 of 2021. The appellant is
the petitioner in the writ petition. Parties and documents are
referred to in this judgment as they appear in the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is the Managing Committee of
Pallikkunnu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (the Bank), a Co-
operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies
Act, 1969 (the Act). On the basis of a complaint received from
the second respondent, the first respondent called for the
remarks from the Bank and thereupon ordered an inquiry under
Section 65(1) of the Act in terms of Ext.P3 order, in respect of the
appointments effected in the Bank from the year 2016 and a few
other matters. Ext.P3 order was challenged by the petitioner
before this Court in W.P.C.22071 of 2019, and in terms of Ext.P5
judgment, this Court dismissed the said writ petition. Later, on
the basis of the report in the inquiry under Section 65(1) of the
Act, the first respondent issued Ext.P7 notice to the President of
the Bank calling upon him to show cause why further action shall
not be taken against the Bank. The writ petition from which the
writ appeal arises was one instituted challenging Ext.P7 notice.
3. It is seen that when the writ petition was taken up
for hearing, the learned single Judge took the view that Ext.P7
notice is appealable under Section 83 of the Act. Faced with the
said situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for
permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the
aforesaid remedy. The writ petition was accordingly permitted to
be withdrawn on the basis of the permission sought by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the said
decision of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as
also the learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. As noted, there is no adjudication on any of the
matters raised in the writ petition in the impugned judgment.
Instead, as per the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge
permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition without
prejudice to their right to avail the alternative remedies available
for redressal of the grievance voiced in the writ petition, that too,
on the basis of the request made by their counsel. A writ appeal
cannot be instituted against such an order. If at all the petitioner
has any grievance against the said order, they have to seek
review of the judgment.
6. That apart, as noted, the writ petition was one
instituted challenging Ext.P7 notice. Ext.P7 is only a notice
directing the petitioner to show cause why action shall not be
taken against the Bank on the basis of the report in the inqury
conducted under Section 65(1) of the Act. A writ petition cannot
be instituted challenging a show cause notice in the nature of
Ext.P7, and in that view of the matter, the writ petition is not
maintainable and the same ought to have been dismissed in
limine by the learned Single Judge.
7. Be that as it may, it is seen that in the writ petition,
the petitioner obtained an interim order on the premise that they
have applied for copies of a few documents for the purpose of
giving reply to Ext.P7 notice and the copies of the documents
sought by them have not been furnished to them. The interim
order, in the circumstances, was to the effect that the first
respondent shall furnish the documents sought for by the
petitioner. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that
despite the interim order passed by this Court on 6.8.2021, the
copies of the documents sought for were not furnished.
According to the learned counsel, the refusal on the part of the
first respondent in furnishing the documents is now creating an
impediment for the petitioner in the matter of furnishing reply to
Ext.P7 notice. On a query from the court, the learned
Government Pleader submitted that among the documents
sought for by the petitioner, the first respondent is in a
possession to furnish only two documents and the copies of the
same have already been furnished to the petitioner and the
petitioner has produced the said documents in the writ petition
Exts.P14 and P15. If the available documents have already been
furnished by the first respondent to the petitioner, there cannot
be any impediment for the petitioner in submitting a reply to
Ext.P7 notice.
In the said view of the matter, we deem it appropriate
to set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the writ petition.
Ordered accordingly.
sd/-/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
sd/-
C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.
STK
