Prasannakumari P.K vs The Assistant Registrar Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10912 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA,
                              1944
                   WP(C) NO. 28878 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

          PRASANNAKUMARI P.K.
          AGED 52 YEARS
          W/O.REGHUNATHAN P., PULLANIKKAT HOUSE,
          EDARIKKODE P.O., AMBALAVATTAM,
          MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
          BY ADVS.
          P.P.JACOB
          MARIYAM JACOB


RESPONDENT/S:

    1      THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
           SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
           MALAPPURAM, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
           CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), MALAPPURAM,
           B2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
    2      THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
           SOCIETIES (G)
           MALAPPURAM, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
           CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), MALAPPURAM,
           B2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION,
           MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
    3      THE PARAPPOOR RURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
           LTD.NO.M 799
           MALAPPURAM - 676 505,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
           BY ADVS.
           ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
           M.SASINDRAN

          SMT.PARVATHY.K-GP
 W.P (C) No. 28878 of 2022
                            ..2..




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No. 28878 of 2022
                                  ..3..




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P8 order imposing certain

amounts against her as statutory surcharge, under the

provisions of Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies

Act ('KCS Act' for short). She alleges that there is no finding,

either in Ext.P8 or in Ext.P4 report, that she had either

misappropriated funds from the Society, or that she had

colluded with Sri.Abdul Jabar - who has been found guilty of

doing so; but that all which is now impugned against her is that

she had not supervised the affairs of the Society appropriately

and this has thus caused loss to it.

2. Sri.P.P.Jacob - learned counsel for the petitioner,

vehemently argued that, going by the proceedings on record

and under the applicable statutory scheme, the afore

allegations are not sufficient to find his client liable to

surcharge; and thus, reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P8 be set

aside.

3. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore

submissions of the petitioner at this stage because,

admittedly, she has an available alternative and efficacious W.P (C) No. 28878 of 2022 ..4..

remedy of filing an appeal before the Government under the

"KCS Act". The only reason stated by Sri.P.P.Jacob in his client

not having done so is that, the period of limitation has now

expired and that she had approached this Court as early as on

01.09.2022.

4. I am afraid that the afore explanation of Sri.P.P.Jacob

does not appeal to me because, merely because the petitioner

chose to approach this Court through this writ petition does not

mean that I am obliged to consider it on its merits.

5. I am certain that, therefore, the petitioner must be

given an opportunity of availing her alternative remedy,

particularly, because the afore contentions are ones which will

have to be tested, based on relevant inputs, including factual

and documentary.

6. I, therefore, asked Smt.Parvathy Kottol - learned

Government Pleader and Sri.M.Sasindran - learned Standing

Counsel for the Society, whether they would oppose this Court

granting an opportunity to the petitioner of filing an appeal

against Ext.P8 within a time frame; to which, they fairly

submitted to the negative, but praying that all contentions be W.P (C) No. 28878 of 2022 ..5..

allowed to be impelled by their clients also.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition to the

limited extent of leaving liberty to the petitioner to file a

statutory appeal against Ext.P8 before the Government within

a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment; and if this is done, said Authority will consider

the same to have been filed within time and proceed to

dispose it of, after affording her, as well as the competent

official of the Society, an opportunity of being heard; thus

culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action

thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is

completed and the resultant order communicated to the

petitioner, all action for recovery against her shall stand

deferred.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

ACR W.P (C) No. 28878 of 2022 ..6..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28878/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE BYELAW, PAGES 1, 2 AND 8 TO 10 OF 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT PAGES 1 TO 3 AND 50 TO 53 OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/7/2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT PAGES 1 TO 3 AND 46 TO 49 FOR 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/7/21 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18/8/21 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6/9/21 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/5/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.