Kerala High Court
Vincent Joseph Pallat vs The Registrar Of Co €“ Operative ... on 5 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 15223 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
VINCENT JOSEPH PALLAT, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PALLAT HOUSE,
PULIKURUMBA P.O. KANNUR, PIN - 670582
BY ADV CHRISTINE MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD
(PO) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695014
2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL),KANNURTHE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (GENERAL),KANNUR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),KANNUR,
THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
3 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
TALIPARAMBA, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHINMAYA SCHOOL ROAD,
TRICHAMBARAM, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670141
4 SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, MAYYIL SCB GROUP
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES,ALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670141
5 THE NADUVIL SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.NO.LL 136
NADUVIL POST-, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 670582
BY ADVS.
RAPHAEL THEKKAN
T.C.SIBI - R5
SMT. MABLE C.KURIAN - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 15223/24
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner concedes that there are three ex parte Awards
issued against him by the Statutory Arbitrator, under the provisions
of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act; but asserts that this has
been done without his knowledge or notice to him. He says that
he, therefore, preferred Exts.P2 to P4 applications before the 3 rd
respondent-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to have the
said Awards set aside; but that even though the same have not
been considered by the Arbitrator, respondents 4 and 5 are
proceeding to recover amounts from him on the strength of Ext.P1,
through Revenue Recovery action and that, therefore, he has been
constrained to approach this Court through this Writ Petition.
2. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Christine
Mathew - learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing
Counsel for the 5th respondent - Sri.T.C.Sibi, submitted that
Exts.P2 to P4 have been preferred by the petitioner only to
protract the proceedings because, as evident from the Awards
itself, they have been issued several years ago. He added that the
Arbitrator may not have even jurisdiction to consider such
applications on account of the rigour of limitation. He thus prayed
that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
3. Smt.Mable C. Kurian - learned Senior Government
Pleader, also adopted the afore submissions of the learned Standing
Counsel for the Bank, saying that if this Court is nevertheless
inclined to direct the Arbitrator to consider Exts.P2 to P4, then all
relevant issues may be left open, including the rigour of limitation;
adding that she also is of the prima facie opinion that they are not
maintainable for the reason that they have been preferred by the
petitioner after several years.
Taking note of the afore submissions, I allow this Writ
Petition to the limited extent of directing the competent Arbitrator
to take up Exts.P2 to P4 applications of the petitioner and to
dispose of the same, after affording him, as also the authorised
official of the respondent-Bank, an opportunity of being heard; thus
culminating in an appropriate order/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.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is
completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner,
all further action pursuant to Ext.P1 will stand deferred; but can
be taken forward thereafter, depending upon such decision, from
the stage from which it is available today, without having to
obtain any further orders from this Court.
Solely by way of reiterated clarity, I leave liberty to the
competent Arbitrator to decide every issue, including the question
of rigour of limitation and record that this has not been even
peripherally considered by this Court in this judgment.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15223/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P 1 A TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN
MATHRUBHUMI NEWSPAPER DATED 07.03.2024
Exhibit P2 .TRUE COPY OF PETITIONS FILED IN ARC NO
3118 OF 2021 DATED 12.03.2024 BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONS FILED IN ARC NO
3117 OF 2021 DATED 12.03.2024 BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONS FILED IN ARC NO
3112 OF 2021 DATED 12.03.2024 BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT
