Kerala High Court
Anjarakany Farmers Service ... vs The State Of Kerala on 10 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 25012 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
ANJARAKANDY FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LIMITED, NO.1141, P.O.MAMBA, KANNUR-670611
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MANOJ KUMAR P
K.P.PRADEEP
HAREESH M.R.
SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
T.T.BIJU
T.THASMI
M.J.ANOOPA
SANU S MALAKEEL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CO-
OPERATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR
SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014
3 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION
BOARD, TC NO 27/156 & 157, CHINMAYA LANE NEAR
AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE OMBUDSMAN, KATHIMUKKU,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM 695 023, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
5 M. KRISHNAN, S/O KUNHAMBU THAMB,KUDUKKIMETTA,
P.O. EACHUR, KANNUR 670 591.
6 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANNUR TALUK,
NEAR GANDHI CIRCLE, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR 670 002.
M.SASINDRAN,
VIDHYA. A.C
WP(C) NO. 25012 OF 2022
2
A.C.VENUGOPAL
PARVATHY K.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25012 OF 2022
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner - which is a Society registered under
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - has approached this Court
through this writ petition, after having obtained Ext.P8
judgment in an earlier round of litigation. It is conceded that
Ext.P8 has been confirmed in appeal and that the third
respondent - Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension
Board (for short "Board") has, thereafter, adjudicated the
claims of the fifth respondent, leading to Ext.P9 notice to be
issued to them under the Revenue Recovery Act.
2. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P9 is illegal because
the adjudication by the Board was not proper and that this is
more so because this Court had, in Ext.P8 judgment, directed
that such be done afresh, which has not been complied with
by them. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be set
aside.
3. Even though I have heard Smt.Thasmi T. - learned
counsel for the petitioner, on the afore lines, the fact remains
that Ext.P8 judgment makes it luculent that the "Board" was
entitled to conduct a proper enquiry and quantify the amounts
WP(C) NO. 25012 OF 2022
due from the petitioner. The petitioner does not have a case
that they were not heard or that the adjudication was wrong.
In any event, even if they have any such, it is up to them to
approach the "Board" or other competent Statutory
Authorities against the quantification and it was not
permissible for them to have approached this Court through
this writ petition, particularly when Ext.P9 is only a
consequential action resultant to Ext.P8 judgment.
4. Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as
afore, Smt.Thasni T. - learned counsel for the petitioner
prayed that if this Court is not inclined to intervene with
Ext.P9, then liberty may be reserved to her client to challenge
the quantification made by the Board, either before them or
before the competent statutory Authority.
5. It is doubtless that when actions are taken under the
applicable statutory scheme, the petitioner, as also the fifth
respondent, have every legally permitted liberty available to
them and it does not require any orders to be issued by this
Court specifically.
6. Suffice to say, since Ext.P9 is consequent to Ext.P8
judgment, I do not think that this Court will be justified in
WP(C) NO. 25012 OF 2022
intervening with it in any manner whatsoever.
Resultantly, I close this writ petition, without
considering any of the contentions of the petitioner on its
merits; however, leaving them liberty to either approach the
"Board" - if they have any objections regarding the
qualification; or other statutory Authorities, as may be
permitted under the applicable Scheme.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 25012 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25012/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-11-
2014 IN WPⒸ NO 3205 OF 2014
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
ENTERED BY THE PETITIONER AND 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 11-04-2017.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. DBR NO. 7
OF 4/17-18 DATED 29-05-2017 OF THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO. 229/18
DATED 06-05-2018 FILED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED
BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT P4 BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO
PB/LO/6433/2018 DATED 20-03-2019 FILED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 B TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER
STATEMENT DATED 17-7-2019 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 C TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT
DATED 16-5-2019 FILED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07-
09-2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER COM NO 229/2018
DATED 26-11-2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
WP(C) NO. 25012 OF 2022
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-06-
2022 IN WPC NO 16552 OF 2022
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO RRC
NO.2022/1504/01 DATED 01-07-2022 UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO RRC
NO.2022/1504/01 DATED 03-07-2022 UNDER
SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
