Aliyamma Geroge vs The Joint Registrar Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3235 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                              &
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
 FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                    WA NO. 307 OF 2022
         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2022 IN
         WP(C)NO.4559/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:

    1     ALIYAMMA GEROGE,
          AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.T.V.GEORGE,
          THACHIRIKKAL HOUSE, ERUMBAMUTTI, PALAKKAYAM,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN CODE-678 591.
          BY ADVS.
          GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
          NISHA GEORGE
          ARUN CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
          (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
          COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KENATHUPARAMBU,
          KUNNATHURMEDU, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
          PIN CODE-678 013.
    2     THE MACHAMTHODE AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT
          COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.P1331,
          THACHAMPARA POST OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
          PIN CODE-678 591, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
    3     THE PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR,
          THE MACHAMTHODE AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT
          COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.P1331,
          THACHAMPARA POST OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
          PINCODE-678 591.
    4     HIRAN M.P.,
          JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
          (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
          COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KENATHUPARAMBU,
          KUNNATHURMEDU, CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD - 678 013.
 Writ Appeal No.307 of 2022          2




            SRI.V.K.SUNIL SR. GP
            SRI.C.P.SABARI R4
      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2022,     THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Writ Appeal No.307 of 2022            3




             P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
              -----------------------------------------------
                   Writ Appeal No.307 of 2022
              -----------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 18th day of March, 2022


                              JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 23.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No.4559 of 2022. The appellant

was the petitioner in the writ petition.

2. The appellant was a member of the Managing

Committee of the second respondent, a co-operative society

registered and functioning under the Kerala Co-operative

Societies Act, 1969 (the Act) and the Kerala Co-operative

Societies Rules (the Rules). As per Ext.P6 order, the appellant

was declared disqualified to be a member of the Managing

Committee of the Society. The disqualification was in terms of

Rule 44(2)(a) read with Rule 44(1)(c) of the Rules. Ext.P6 order

was under challenge in the writ petition mainly on the ground

that the appellant has not been given notice in terms of the

proviso to Rule 44(2)(a) of the Rules requiring her to pay the

defaulted amount.

3. A counter affidavit was filed by respondents 2

and 3 in the writ petition stating, among others, that the

appellant has been issued notice in terms of the proviso to Rule

44(2)(a) of the Rules. The copies of the postal receipt

evidencing issuance of the notice and the postal

acknowledgement card signed by the appellant evidencing

receipt of the same were produced along with the counter

affidavit. Even though an interlocutory application was filed by

the appellant as I.A.No.1 of 2022 to call for the originals of the

postal receipt and the postal acknowledgement card, the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition leaving open

the rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate statutory

remedy against Ext.P6 order. The appellant is aggrieved by the

said decision of the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. As noted, while the appellant maintains that

she was not issued with a notice in terms of the proviso to Rule

44(2)(a) of the Rules, respondents 2 and 3 assert that the

appellant has been issued the said notice. In other words, what

is to be resolved is a question of fact. We are therefore, unable

to find fault with the learned Single Judge in relegating the

appellant to the alternative remedy available to her under the

statute for redressal of the grievance voiced in the writ petition.

In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the

writ appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Sd/-

C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.

YKB