Kerala High Court
K.K.Karnan vs The Secretary on 5 April, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
K.K. KARNAN, S/O.KURUVANPADATH KRISHNANKUTTY,
PROPRIETOR, S.N.RICEMILL,OKKAL, KALADY, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
SRI.C.P.SABARI
RESPONDENTS:
1 SECRETARY, PARAPPUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO.474, PARAPPUR P.O., THRISSUR 680 552.
2 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G)
CIVIL STATION, TRISSUR 680001.
BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).17451/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17451 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
K.K.KARNAN, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.KURUVANPADATH KRISHNANKUTTY, PROPRIETOR,
S.N.RICEMILL, OKKAL, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
SRI.C.P.SABARI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY
PARAPPUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.474,
PARAPPUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 552.
2 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G)
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 552.
3 KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, NANDANAM, TC/14/2057,
VANDROS JUNCTION, UNIVERSITY P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 34.
4 C.V.SASIDHARAN, JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (G), CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA- 688 001.
5 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).15046/2016, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016
3
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.15046/2016, 17451/2016]
I am considering these two writ petitions together
because, the factual circumstances are interconnected; while,
the reliefs sought for are dependent on each other.
2. Among the afore two writ petitions, W.P.(C)
No.15046/2016 has been filed by the petitioner impugning
Ext.P6, which is an order issued by the statutory Arbitrator
under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act
(KCS Act), reviewing his own Ext.P3 award; and the petitioner
asserts that this is illegal and unlawful. He admits that, against
Ext.P6, by way of abundant caution, he has preferred an appeal
before the learned Tribunal, which, however, has demanded him
to pay certain amounts towards "Legal Benefit Charges", which
has constrained him to file W.P.(C) No.17451/2016, challenging
the said order, producing it as Ext.P11.
3. Sri.C.P.Sabari - learned counsel for the petitioner in
both cases, today submitted that the question whether the
Arbitrator could have reviewed his own Award, has been
decided by this Court in Satheesh Kumar D v. Special Sale
Officer (W.P.(C) No.7034/2024). He argued that, therefore,
WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016
Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.15046/2016 becomes untenable and
illegal; and consequently, that his client is not now required to
pursue the appeal against it, based on which Ext.P11 order in
W.P.(C) No.17451/2016 has been issued by the learned
Tribunal.
4. Sri.P.Ramakrishnan - learned standing counsel for the
respondent - Bank, conceded that this Court has already
declared that the statutory Arbitrator obtains no power to
review his own Award, except in certain specified
circumstances. He, therefore, left it to this Court to issue
appropriate orders, conceding that no such circumstances are
involved in these cases.
5. I have examined the facts involved in these writ
petitions, on the touchstone of the various materials produced
and the afore submissions made at the Bar.
6. As rightly argued by Sri.C.P.Sabari and conceded by
Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, this Court has, in Satheesh Kumar D
(supra), declared the law that power of Review is not inherent,
but only statutorily vested; and that since the "KCS Act" does
not empower the statutory Arbitrator to invoke any such power,
indubitably, Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.15046/2016 becomes
WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016
forensically untenable.
7. However, that said, a question can arise as to why this
Court should intervene in these matters, when the petitioner has
invoked his alternative remedy against Ext.P6, by filing an
appeal before the Tribunal, as evident from the pleadings in
W.P.(C) No.17451/2016.
8. The answer to this is simple; because, Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)
No.15046/2016 can only be seen to be only non est. Any appeal
filed against it, therefore, also does not require to be prosecuted
on its merits.
9. Since the afore aspects are without contest, I am
certain that this Court will be justified in disposing of these writ
petitions with the following directions:
(a) W.P.(C) No.15046/2016 is allowed and Ext.P6 is set
aside, following the declarations of this Court in Satheesh
Kumar D (supra).
(b) Consequently, W.P.(C) No.17451/2016 is closed,
declaring that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the
learned Tribunal is unnecessary; with a consequential direction
to it to close it.
WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016
(c) Needless to say, I have not entered into the merits of
any of the other contentions of the respondent - Bank and their
rights of recovery, based on the Award passed by the Tribunal
against the petitioner herein, are fully protected and reserved;
for which purpose, all rival contentions are also left open.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17451/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT IN ARC NO.5/2013.
P2 A TRUE COPY AWARD DATED 24.10.2014 IN ARC
NO.5/2013.
P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2015 IN
A.P.NO.102/2014.
P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 07.10.2015 IN
ARC NO.5/2013.
P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SO CALLED REVIEW PETITION
DATED 07.12.2015.
P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED "NIL" ISSUED BY
SECOND RESPONDENT.
P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 05.02.2016 OF
THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN "UNNUMBERED REVIEW
PETITION".
P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
29.04.2016 IN W.P.(C)NO.15046/2016.
P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CO-
OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL.
P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE SRO 225/2002 DATED
05.04.2002.
P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 04.05.2016 IN URC
6/2016 ISSUED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL.
WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15046/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 24/10/2014
P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/3/2015
P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 7/10/2015 IN
P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 5/2/2016 OF
THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN UNNUMBERED REVIEW
PETITION.
P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED "NIL"
ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT.
P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 05.02.2016
OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN "UNNUMBERED
REVIEW PETITION".
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R-1(a) TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 5/1/2020
ENTERED INTO BETWEEN M/S KKR AGRO MILL PVT
LTD, THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN AND THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SOCIETY
