Paruthipully Ksheerolpadaka ... vs The Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 6717 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 35547 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

         PARUTHIPULLY KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD
         NO.P142(D)APCOS
         PARUTHIPULLY.P.O., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
         - 678573
         [REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. VELAYUDHAN
         EZHUTHACHAN].
         BY ADVS.
         G.HARIHARAN
         PRAVEEN.H.
         K.S.SMITHA
         V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
         GENTLE C.D.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE DIRECTOR
         DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATTOM,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.
    2    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
         DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION,
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001.
    3    DAIRY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
         DAIRY DEVELOPMENT UNIT, KUZHALMANNAM
         BLOCK.,KUZHALMANNAM, ALATHUR TALUK,
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678702
    4    MR.K.V.KRISHNADAS,
         KANAKKATHARA HOUSE, PARUTHIPULLY, ALATHUR TALUK,
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678573.
         BY ADVS.
         T.K.SANDEEP
         VEENA HARIKUMAR(K/1379/2021)
         SWETHA R.(K/002236/2022)

          SMT MABLE C KURIAN-SR GP
 WPC 35547/2022
                              ..2..



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 35547/2022
                                  ..3..



                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner - "Paruthipully Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana

Sangham Ltd." ('Society' for short), assails Ext.P11 order of the

1st respondent - Director of Dairy Development Department,

asserting that their primary objection against the grant of

membership to respondent No. 4 has not been even adverted

to, much less considered, in spite of the specific directions of

this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, delivered in

WP(C)No.6610/2022.

2. Sri.G.Hariharan - learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the main objection raised by his client against

the grant of membership to the 4th respondent is that, he was

selling milk to other parties also and that this is a factor which

inhibits him from being offered the said benefit, going by the

provisions of law and the clauses of their Bye-laws. He

submitted that, however, while Ext.P11 has been issued, the

Deputy Director has merely stated that there is no justification

for the 'Society' in not giving membership to the 4 th respondent

and has consequently directed that he be given such

immediately. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that

Ext.P11 be set aside.

WPC 35547/2022 ..4..

3. Smt.Mable C.Kurian - learned Senior Government

Pleader, submitted that Ext.P11 is irreproachable because, the

Deputy Director has found that 4th respondent has been

pouring milk to the 'Society' since 2018 and that he resides

within its area of operation. She submitted that, therefore,

there is no reason for the 'Society' to have denied him

membership, particularly when the afore facts are virtually

admitted.

4. However, to a pointed question from this Court,

Smt.Mable C.Kurian was unable to inform me how the Deputy

Director has considered the petitioner's specific claim - that a

person who is selling milk to an "outside party" would stand

excluded from being considered for membership going by the

statutory scheme and the provisions of the Bye-laws of the

'Society'. She added that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined

said Authority is willing to reconsider this.

5. I have little doubt that the Deputy Director ought to have

taken note of the afore contention of the Society; before

Ext.P11 could have been issued, but this is not to mean that

this Court is concluding so. This is more so because, an

assessment of the clauses of the Bye-laws of the 'Society' at

the first instance would not be justified for this Court to do so, WPC 35547/2022 ..5..

while it acts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and

am certain that it is for the Deputy Director to have done so,

before any conclusive decision could have been taken.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set

aside Ext.P11; with a consequential direction to the 2 nd

respondent to reconsider the claim of the 4 th respondent, after

affording him, as also the petitioner, necessary opportunities of

being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and

necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but

not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

I make it clear that every contention of the rival parties,

including that of the petitioner - that 4th respondent is selling

milk to outside parties and that this is a disqualification - shall

be specifically kept in mind and answered, one way or the

other, by the Deputy Director in the resultant order.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

ACR WPC 35547/2022 ..6..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35547/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 08.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 31.03.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN ITEM NO.5 OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25.04.2020 REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR MEMBERSHIP MADE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION MADE IN ITEM NO.3 IN THE MEETING HELD ON 08.02.2022 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 17.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT.P6 ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2022 MADE IN W.P.(C) NO.6610/2022 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED ON 15.09.2022 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED NIL SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE HEARING CONDUCTED ON 15.09.2022 AND RECEIVED ON 03.11.2022 ALONG WITH THE UNREGISTERED POSTAL COVER.