Vandannoor Sadasivan vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 454 Ker

Kerala High Court

Vandannoor Sadasivan vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2026

                                                           2026:KER:3935
W.P.(C)No.43944/2025               1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

       FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26TH POUSHA, 1947

                         WP(C) NO. 43944 OF 2025

PETITIONER/S:

             VANDANNOOR SADASIVAN
             AGED 70 YEARS
             S/O MADHAVAN ANTONY, CHITHIRA, VANDANNOOR,
             PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
             692516


             BY ADVS.
             SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
             SMT.M.BINDUDAS
             SHRI.NIRANJAN T. PRADEEP




RESPONDENT/S:

      1      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
             INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
             DISTRICT, PIN - 695001

      2      THE DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (FUNCTIONAL REGISTRAR OF HANDLOOM
             CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES), DIRECTORATE OF HANDLOOM &
             TEXTILES, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASBHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
             SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
             695033

      3      THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
             KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
             NO.H 232 (HANTEX), REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, P.B.
             NO.64, OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

      4      KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
                                                                    2026:KER:3935
W.P.(C)No.43944/2025                    2

                  NO.H.232 (HANTEX)
                  REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.B. NO.64,
                  OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

       5          MANAGING DIRECTOR
                  KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
                  NO.H.232 (HANTEX), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
                  DIRECTOR, P.B. NO.64, OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
                  PIN - 695001

       6          DESABHIMANI
                  KOLLAM BUREAU, REPRESENTED BY BUREAU CHIEF, HANTEX
                  BUILDING, KOLLAM - THIRUMANGALAM ROAD, CHINNAKADA,
                  KOLLAM, PIN - 691001


                  BY ADV SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
                  SRI. P.P. THAJUDHEEN - SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER


THIS       WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
21.11.2025 AND HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2026, THE COURT
ON 16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                    2026:KER:3935
W.P.(C)No.43944/2025                   1

                               JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging a decision taken by the

Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. (HANTEX) to

relocate its Regional Office, currently situated in Kollam, to

Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner, a member of the Managing Committee

of the Punnavoor Handloom Weaver's Co-operative Society Ltd., one of the

Primary Societies affiliated to HANTEX, and the delegate of the Primary

Society to HANTEX (the apex society), alleges that the decision is arbitrary

and illegal. The petitioner further asserts that the intention behind the

relocation of the Regional Office from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram is to

provide additional accommodation to the 6th respondent, a newspaper

managed by individuals who are loyal to the ruling political party in the State

of Kerala. The petitioner points out that the Kollam Regional Office of

HANTEX is housed in its own building, and there is no logical basis for

relocating it to Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Sri. R. T. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, submits that the HANTEX is now managed by an Administrative

Committee and not by a committee elected in terms of the provisions

contained in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred

to as 'the 1969 Act'). He contends that the decision to shift the office of the

HANTEX from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram could not have been taken by 2026:KER:3935

the Administrative Committee. He placed reliance on the judgments of this

Court in Gangadharan v. Administrator, 1988 KHC 26, Thrissur

District Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala, 2003 KHC 460, and

Prakasan A.M. v. State of Kerala, 2016 (3) KHC 670 to contend that

the Administrator or the Administrative Committee can decide on routine

matters alone and that a major decision such as shifting the Regional Office

from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram ought to be taken only by the elected

committee or the General Body of HANTEX. It is submitted that the

petitioner, being a member of one of the Primary Societies affiliated to the

HANTEX and being a delegate to the Apex Society (HANTEX), has the locus

standi to challenge the decision taken by the Administrative Committee to

shift the Regional Office of the HANTEX from Kollam to

Thiruvananthapuram. It is submitted that since the decision to shift the

office of the HANTEX from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram is mala fide and

illegal, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, must interfere with the said decision.

3. Sri. P. P. Thajudheen, the learned special Government

Pleader appearing for the official respondents, and Sri. Suman Chakravarthy,

the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent (HANTEX), oppose the

grant of any relief to the petitioner. Firstly, it is submitted that the provisions

of sub-section (4) of Section 32 of the 1969 Act indicate that the 2026:KER:3935

Administrative Committee is free to exercise all or any of the powers and

functions of the elected committee and is called upon to take such action as

may be required in the interest of the society. It is submitted that there is

absolutely no proposal to accommodate the 6 th respondent or to give any

additional space to the 6th respondent in the building where the Regional

Office of HANTEX is presently functioning. It is submitted that in February

2025, the Government has initiated discussions on the recommendations of

an expert committee appointed to look into the issues facing the Handloom

Sector, and thereafter, Ext.P6 letter was issued which conveys the decision of

the Government that to improve the financial position of the HANTEX, the

number of outlets has to be reduced, and showrooms which are in loss for

more than ten years have to be closed down. It is submitted that the Regional

Office of HANTEX situated at Kollam services 249 Primary Societies

operating within Thiruvananthapuram District, 25 Primary Societies

operating within Kollam District, and 3 Primary Societies operating within

Alappuzha District. It is submitted that since the majority of the Primary

Societies serviced by the Regional Office in question are functioning in

Thiruvananthapuram District, the decision to shift the Regional Office to

Thiruvananthapuram was taken to increase administrative efficiency. It is

pointed out that the shifting of the Regional Office of the HANTEX from

Kollam is to a place where the majority of the business activities take place. It 2026:KER:3935

is submitted that since HANTEX is facing a financial crisis, the closing of the

Kollam Regional Office will enable HANTEX to lease out the building at

Kollam, so that some additional income can be generated. It is submitted that

the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the decision taken to shift the

Kollam Regional Office of the HANTEX from Kollam to

Thiruvananthapuram. It is submitted that the writ petition is filed on an

experimental basis and on account of political reasons, and there is no public

interest whatsoever involved in the matter.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, the learned special Government Pleader appearing for the official

respondents, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5 th

respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to

challenge the decision taken to shift the Regional Office of the HANTEX at

Kollam to the Head Office at Thiruvananthapuram. The contention of the

petitioner that, as a member of one of the Primary Societies affiliated to the

HANTEX and as a delegate of the primary society to the apex society

(HANTEX), he has the locus standi to challenge the decision to shift the

regional office is only to be rejected. The petitioner has no statutory or other

legal right to contend that the Regional Office must continue to function at

Kollam. The decision to shift the Regional Office of the HANTEX from

Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram appears to be a decision taken in the best 2026:KER:3935

interest of the 5th respondent. In Kushum Lata v. Union of India,

(2006) 6 SCC 180, it was held:-

"16. .......... No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530]. Today people rush to the courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in the courts and among the public."

This court cannot, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the

Constitution of India, interfere with routine administrative matters unless the

decision which is impugned is found to be one issued in violation of statutory

provisions. In Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5

SCC 437, it was held:-

"21. As observed in Attorney General for New Southwales v. Quin to strike the exercise of administrative power solely on the ground of avoiding the disappointment of the legitimate expectations of an individual would be to set the courts adrift on a featureless sea of pragmatism. Moreover, the negotiation of a legitimate expectation (falling short of a legal right) is too nebulous to form a basis for invalidating the exercise of a power when its exercise otherwise accords with law."

A perusal of the provisions of sub-section(4) of Section 32 of the 1969 Act

and a reading of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner indicate to me that the decision to shift the Regional Office of the

HANTEX from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram cannot be termed as a 2026:KER:3935

decision that an Administrator or the Administrative Committee cannot take.

Whether the Regional Office is to function at Kollam or at

Thiruvananthapuram is purely a matter within the domain of the

management of the 5th respondent. A reading of the counter affidavit filed by

the 5th respondent will indicate that 249 Primary Societies are functioning in

Thiruvananthapuram, 25 in Kollam, and 3 in Alappuzha. These Primary

Societies are all being serviced by the Regional Office, which is presently

located in Kollam. That apart, the allegation that the office is being shifted to

provide space for the 6th respondent has been stoutly denied in the counter-

affidavit. It has been clearly stated that there is no decision taken to enter

into any agreement with the 6th respondent for providing the space vacated by

the Regional Office of the HANTEX at Kollam. The dispute raised in this writ

petition cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

The writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd 2026:KER:3935

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 43944 OF 2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 30.9.2025 PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 29.9.2025 BY PUNNAVOOR HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.H9 BY WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS ELECTED AS THE DELEGATE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PRIMARY SOCIETY Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE UNION OF KERALA KAITHARI THOZHILALI CONGRESS BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 01-20 OF 1990 DATED 24.3.1990 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL AFFILIATION (IV/11838) DATED 13.12.2006 OF UNION WITH INTUC Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.H.L/1606/2022-T-3 DATED 12.2.2024 BY 2ND RESPONDENT APPOINTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE TO 4TH RESPONDENT TO RESOLVE ADMINISTRATIVE STALEMATE Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS H.L./1606/2022-T-3 DATED 16.8.2024 BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE TENURE OF 4TH RESPONDENT TO ANOTHER 6 MONTHS Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF G.O. (RT) NO.30/2025/ID DATED 13.1.2025 BY WHICH THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXTENDED THE TENURE OF 3RD RESPONDENT BY AN YEAR OR TILL THE ELECTION IS HELD WHICHEVER IS EARLIER Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.HL/673/2025-C1 DATED 16.6.2025 FROM 2ND RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT REGARDING THE CLOSING DOWN OF SHOP ROOMS Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.A1/1208/H.O.HANTEX/2017 DATED 24.9.2025 OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF 4TH RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEEON 28.8.2025 TO SHIFT THE KOLLAM REGIONAL OFFICE FROM THE 2ND FLOOR OF HANTEX BUILDING AT CHINNAKKADA TO THE 1ST FLOOR OF HEAD OFFICE IN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF REPORT (R.O./KOLLAM/OFFICE SHIFTING/4773/25 DATED 11.10.2025 OF KOLLAM REGIONAL MANAGER FOR REDEPLOYMENT OF STAFF AND ASSETS FOR SHIFTING KOLLAM REGIONAL OFFICE