Kerala High Court
The Secretary, The Cannanore Block ... vs Smt.Agatha Kunhipanicker on 1 August, 2024
1111111
111111311
2024:KER:58714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024/10TH SRAVANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 25230 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.12.2014 IN OTHERS NO.77
OF 2013 OF KERALA CO-OP.TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONER:
THE SECRETARY,
THE CANNANORE BLOCK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION
SOCIETY LTD NO. C - 843,
NEAR PALAKKAD SWAMI MADAM,
KAKKAD ROAD,
KANNUR - 670 002.
BY ADV SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 SMT.AGATHA KUNHIPANICKER,
AGED 57 YEARS,
W/O.KUNHIPANICKER,
HOUSE NO.13,
LENIN NAGAR HOUSING COLONY,
KANNUR - 670 005.
2 JYOTHISH,
AGED 45 YEARS,
BUSINESS, HOUSE NO.13,
LENIN NAGAR HOUSING COLONY,
KANNUR - 670 005.
3 SANAL PRASAD,
AGED 43 YEARS,
EMPLOYEE, HOUSE NO.13,
LENIN NAGAR HOUSING COLONY,
KANNUR - 670 005.
W.P.(C).No.25230 of 2015
2024:KER:58714
2
4 MEERA,
AGED 40 YEARS
TEACHER, HOUSE NO.13,
LENIN NAGAR HOUSING COLONY,
KANNUR - 670 005.
5 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)
KANNUR - 670 002.
6 KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT. RESHMI K.M
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.25230 of 2015
2024:KER:58714
3
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 1st day of August, 2024)
The Secretary of Kannur Block Cooperative House
Construction Society has come up before this Court challenging Ext.
P8 order passed by Kerala Cooperative Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No. 77/2013.
2. The facts in the writ petition disclose that an arbitration
case was filed by the petitioner against the deceased 1 st respondent.
Respondents 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased 1 st
respondent. Initially, the arbitration case as evident from Ext. P1 was
allowed by the Arbitration Court by Ext. P7 award. Ext. P7 award
was taken up before the Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram
and vide order dated, 29.12.2014 the same was allowed.
3. The writ petitioner contended that Ext. P7 award is
erroneous in so far as the claim of the respondents was considered
on merit, despite finding that the person who heard the arbitration
case has not passed the award. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the Tribunal having found that the person who heard
the case had not passed the order, the appeal should have been
allowed and the matter should have been remanded back to the
Arbitration Court for a fresh consideration. However instead of
adopting the same, the Tribunal had gone into the merits of the case
2024:KER:58714
and found that the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
4. I have heard Sri. P.U Shailajan, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner and Sri. Anoop Krishna Menon, the learned Counsel
appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.
5. I have considered the rival submissions, raised across
the Bar.
6. The reading of Ext.P8 judgment shows that on two counts
the Co-operative Tribunal interfered with the Ext. P7 award.
Primarily, the Tribunal found on facts that the arbitration case was
finally heard on 20.06.2012 by the Assistant Registrar, Sri. V. B
Krishnakumar, but the award was passed by Sri. P. Ramachandran,
the subsequent incumbent who took charge of the post. Secondly it
was also found that Sri. P. Ramachandran, the learned Arbitrator, did
not hear the parties before passing the award. Hence, the award
passed was illegal according to the Cooperative Tribunal.
7. It is now settled law that the principles of natural justice
have to be mandatorily followed by adjudicating authority before
proceeding with the adjudication in terms of the provisions contained
under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. On facts, having
found that there was no opportunity of hearing given to the
petitioner as well as to the respondents 2 to 4, then the only option
before the Tribunal was to set aside the award and remand the
matter back for consideration, instead of considering the case on
2024:KER:58714
merits. Hence, this Court finds that the approach of the Tribunal was
not proper.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext. P8 order
passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in appeal No. 77/2013 to
the extent it decided the matter on merits is set aside. However, the
order of the Tribunal setting aside the award is sustained. As a
result, there will be a direction to the Co-operative Tribunal to
transmit the records back to the 5 th respondent for a fresh
consideration of ARC No. 861/2010-11. The parties shall appear
before the 5th respondent on 19.08.2024. The 1 st respondent shall,
after hearing all parties concerned, endevour to dispose of the
arbitration case within a further period of three months from the
date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. All contentions of the
parties are left open.
Writ Petition ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
ADS
2024:KER:58714
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25230/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC 861/2010 - 11
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 02.06.2010.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT IN ARC 861/2010-11.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED FINAL BILL
REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND HER HUSBAND.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 15.09.2009 TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 14.10.2009 TO 1ST
RESPONDENT'S ADVOCATE KASTHURI DEVAN
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENTS DATED 22.09.2009 THROUGH ADVOCATE
KASTHURI DEVAN TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT IN ARC 861/2010-11 DATED
06.06.2013
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.12.2014
PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN APPEAL
NO.77/2013 DATED 29.12.2014
