Kerala High Court
Krishnan K vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 13575 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KRISHNAN K., AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. VAASU,
KUNNATH HOUSE, PALLIPPADAM, CHAZHIYATTIRI,
OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679535
BY ADVS.
P.T.SHEEJISH
HARIKIRAN
A.ABDUL RAHMAN (A-1917)
PARVATHY S. MANOJ
P.SREERAM
AMRITA SAFAL M.
SANDRA TOM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
COOPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE
KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
3 DEPUTY TAHASILDAR PATTAMBI, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
TAHASILDAR PATTAMBI, PATTAMBI PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679303
4 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL, KENATHUPARAMBU,
KUNATHURMEDU, CIVIL STATION COMPLEX PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678013
5 THE RAJEEV GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE RURAL CREDIT SOCIETY
LIMITED NO.P.1305, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY, PIN - 679535
SMT. MABLE C.KURIAN - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 13575/24
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that, even though he preferred Ext.P3
Statutory Appeal against Ext.P2 order issued by the competent
Authority, under the provisions of Section 68(2) of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short), the same had not yet been considered or disposed of at the
time this Writ Petition had been filed; but that he has been now
informed that it has been rejected without giving him an
opportunity of being heard. He says that, therefore, any order
issued by the Government on Ext.P3 Appeal is illegal and
unlawful; and thus prays that the competent Authority be directed
to reconsider the matter, after affording him necessary opportunity
of being heard.
2. However, in response to the afore submissions of
Sri.P.T.Sheejish - learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Mable C. Kurian, submitted that
the afore assertions are wrong and that the Government has
already issued an order dated 18.06.2022, rejecting Ext.P3 Appeal.
She explained that, even though the petitioner and the respondent-
Society were given several notices to appear, they had refused to
do so - but adding that the counsel for the petitioner had done so
once, to seek time; and that hence, there were no other options
left to the Government, but to dispose of the matter in their
absence, as has been done in the aforementioned order. She thus
prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed; adding that the afore
order has been produced on record along with a Memo dated
06.06.2024, asserting that the remedy of the petitioner is to
challenge the said order and not to continue with this Writ
Petition.
3. In reply, Sri.P.T.Sheejish submitted that his client was
never aware of the aforementioned order, nor has a copy of the
same even given to him at any point of time; and hence that he is
even incapacitated from challenging it appropriately. He,
nevertheless, prayed that, since the order clearly indicates that his
client has not been given an opportunity of being heard, the same
cannot be found to be legally fair; and thus reiteratingly prayed
that the same be set aside and the Government be directed to
reconsider the Appeal in its proper perspective.
4. I must record upfront that, normally, in a case like
this, where the petitioner alleges that he has never received a
copy of the order issued against Ext.P3 Appeal, his remedy is to
challenge the subsequent order produced before this Court, either
through an amendment, or such other appropriate means. He has
not done so, and I, therefore, posed a question to the learned
Government Pleader, as to if the petitioner can be given an
opportunity of being heard, or the Government can take a decision
if any modification to the order dated 18.06.2022 can be done. In
response, she submitted that such a course would amount to a
review of the order, which the Government cannot do; and
therefore, reaffirmed that the only remedy of the petitioner is to
challenge the new order appositely.
I must say that there is some force in the afore submissions
of the learned Senior Government Pleader and therefore, close this
Writ Petition without acceding to the reliefs sought for herein;
however, leaving full liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh Writ
Petition or invoke such other remedy against the order dated
18.06.2022; for which purpose, all rival contentions and liberties
are left open.
In order to enable the petitioner to do so without the threat
of imminent action, I order that all further action pursuant to the
order of the Government dated 18.06.2022 will stand deferred for
a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13575/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18.06.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE THRITHALA UNIT INSPECTOR
TO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, PATTAMBI
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
JRGPKD/3773/2021-HM DATED 17.12.2021
PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
UNDER SECTION 83[1] [J] OF THE KERALA CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 21.01.2022
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO
3678/2022 DATED 16/2/2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
28.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
