Shanavas P.P vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6522 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          SHANAVAS P.P,AGED 51 YEARS
          S/O. APPUNNI MARATH, RESIDING AT PADINHARE PURAKKAL,
          VATTAPPARAMBU, CHALIYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK,
          KOCHIKDOE DISTRICT 673 301.

          BY ADVS.
          J.R.PREM NAVAZ
          SUMEEN S.


RESPONDENTS:
     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO
           -OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
           695 001.

    2     THE KARUVANTHIRUTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.
          D.2638, KARUVANTHIRUTHY, FEROKE , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
          673 631, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

    3     JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673
          004.

    4     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
          SOCIETIES KOZHIKODE OFFICE OF JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
          OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE
          DISTRICT 673 004.

          BY ADVS.
          P.P.JACOB
          MARIYAM JACOB

          SMT PARVATHY K-GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022
                                   2



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that Ext.P1 order,

placing him under suspension by the Secretary

of the 2nd respondent Bank, is supported by no

reason and has been issued in a reckless

manner, without verifying whether such a

drastic action was necessary.

2. Sri.Prem Navas - learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, submits that even

going by the allegations levelled against his

client, an order of suspension was completely

unnecessary; but that this was never been

considered and it has been issued in a

mechanical manner, merely because the Secretary

obtains statutory competence to have done so.

The learned counsel, therefore, prays that

Ext.P1 be set aside.

3. Smt.Maria.T.T - learned counsel WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022

representing the learned Standing Counsel for

the 2nd respondent, submitted that the

petitioner has no locus to challenge Ext.P1

before this Court since he obtains an

alternative effective remedy of making a

representation against it. She added that if

the petitioner does so, certainly, the

competent Authority will consider it, with

particular reference to his contention that an

order of suspension was not necessary in the

factual circumstances presented. She, however,

prayed that this Court may not make any

affirmative declarations in favour of the

petitioner.

4. I find substantial force in the afore

submissions of Smt.Mariya.T.T because, before

this Court can exercise judicial review, the

action of the Authority will have to be tested

through the alternative efficacious remedy

available.

WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022

5. It is without doubt that the petitioner

can always represent against Ext.P1 before the

competent Authority and I am firm that the

petitioner must complete that process also,

before he can approach this Court.

6. Resultantly, I leave liberty to the

petitioner to make an appropriate

representation against Ext.P1, edificed on all

his contentions as he may be entitled to make;

and if this is done before the competent

Authority within a period of one week from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the

same shall be considered, after affording him

an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating

in an appropriate order and necessary action

thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but

not later than one week thereafter.

7. Needless to say, I have not considered

the merits of any of the rival contentions of

the parties and they are all left open to be WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022

pursued by them appropriately, if it become so

warranted in future after the afore exercise.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 18003 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18003/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER PASSED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.5.2022.