Kerala High Court
T.K.Porinchu vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 20 March, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1940
WP(C).No. 653 of 2018
PETITIONER:
T.K.PORINCHU, PRESIDENT, THE THRISSUR DISTRICT
CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL SOCIETY LIMITED NO. R 306,
SHORANUR ROAD, THRISSUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680
001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 680 001.
Addl. 2 SRI.C.M.DAMODARAN, CHELLARI VEEDU,
CHUVANNAMANNU.P.O., THRISSUR DIST. - 680552
(is impleaded as per order dated 10.01.2018 in
I.A.No.427/2018)
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.RAJITHA
SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH-ADDL.AG
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 653 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is stated to be the President of the Thrissur District Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd., which is a Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, has filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P1 notice, issued by the first respondent - Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Thrissur, as per which, he has been asked to appear before the said Officer for the purpose of enquiry into a complaint preferred by the second respondent herein. The petitioner says that the complaint preferred by the second respondent is untenable in law and that the Authorities ought not to have taken cognizance of the same or to have issued any notice proposing action thereon. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P1 be set aside, finding it to be imprudent and illegal.
2. When this matter was being considered by me, I thought it fit that I hear the learned Additional Advocate General, since certain very important issues cropped up; and Sri.K.K.Raveendranath, the learned Additional Advocate General, advanced arguments on behalf of the first respondent.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General commenced his submissions by saying that Ext.P1 notice has been issued taking WP(C).No. 653 of 2018 3 note of the complaint preferred by the second respondent and he says that serious allegations have been made therein against the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The learned Additional Additional Advocate General, then pointed out the sequence of events which led to this, by saying that the second respondent had initially approached the Joint Registrar with a complaint against the petitioner herein, alleging that he is disqualified to continue as the President of the Society, since the Head Nurse in the hospital run by the Society is his niece. He submits that this complaint was referred by the said Authority to the Assistant Registrar for a report and it transpires that the said Officer thereupon conducted an enquiry and thereafter, issued a letter to the second respondent informing him that his complaint is not tenable. He says, it appears, it is after obtaining certain reports from the Secretary of Society that the Assistant Registrar issued the letter to the second respondent dated 05.04.2017, informing him that his complaint had no merit because the petitioner was not related to the Head Nurse of the hospital, as alleged by him. The learned Additional Advocate General asserts that this course adopted by the Assistant Registrar may not be proper in law because he ought to have addressed his report only to the Joint Registrar and could not have normally written a WP(C).No. 653 of 2018 4 letter to the second respondent - complainant. He says that these are all matters which will require a deeper examination but admits that the second respondent ought not to have directly addressed the Assistant Registrar with a threat of legal action against him and that had he any complaint against the said Officer, he should have routed it through proper channel to the higher Authorities for appropriate action.
4. After submitting as afore, the learned Additional Advocate General explains that the letter addressed to the Assistant Registrar by the second respondent was also marked to the Joint Registrar and that it was, therefore, that an enquiry into its allegations were proposed through Ext.P1 notice. The learned Additional Advocate General, however, concedes that this was unnecessary because the letter in question was addressed personally to the Assistant Registrar and therefore, an enquiry into its contents was unnecessarily initiated by the Joint Registrar. He then adds that since the original complaint of the second respondent, addressed to the Joint Registrar, has still not been disposed of, it is up to the said Authority to take note of all the relevant inputs, including the report of the Assistant Registrar and then take a final decision on the question of disqualification of the petitioner. He submits that the Joint WP(C).No. 653 of 2018 5 Registrar will, therefore, complete such proceedings in terms of law, after hearing both the parties and prays that such liberty be, in no manner, interdicted through this judgment.
5. Sri.Arun Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that his client has been constrained to approach this Court because of the persistent harassment meted out to him by the Joint Registrar and contended that the action in having initiated an enquiry based on a complaint, admittedly not addressed to him, would demoralize the statutory Authorities under him and therefore, that such an enquiry ought not to have been initiated at all. Sri.Arun Chandran, thereafter contended that his client does not suffer disqualification as complained by the second respondent because this issue had earlier been considered in ARC No.2/2012, which was filed by a certain Sri.Jomy Joseph, wherein the allegations identical to ones raised by the second respondent herein had been made against his client but that the said ARC had been dismissed for default. He says, therefore, that a further enquiry into the complaint of the second respondent is unnecessary, if not impermissible.
6. Sri.Santhosh Poduval, the learned counsel for the second respondent, in response to the above submissions, submits that his client addressed the letter in question to the Assistant WP(C).No. 653 of 2018 6 Registrar because his conduct was unbecoming of his office and that he was clearly acting in a biased manner to help the petitioner; but he concedes that the proper remedy for his client was to approach the competent superior Authority rather than threatening the Assistant Registrar himself with a letter or communication directly. He says that his client did so because he is not legally trained and not fully aware of the remedies available to him under the Kerala Co-operative Socities Act or Rules and therefore, prayed that this Court condone his action in having done so, appreciating the spirit behind it.
7. Taking note of the afore submissions, I am certain that the present proceedings proposed by the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies, through Ext.P1 notice, cannot find favour in law because, in effect, this notice intends to enquire into a letter addressed by the second respondent directly to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Even a reading of this letter would show that he is threatening the Assistant Registrar with legal consequences and therefore, it cannot be construed to be a complaint deserving the attention of the superior Authorities in the hierarchy under the KCS Act. For that reason alone, I am certain that the enquiry now proposed through Ext.P1 cannot be allowed to go forward and the petitioner, if he has any WP(C).No. 653 of 2018 7 grievance, must approach the competent Authority under the KCS Act against the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, rather than addressing letters directly to the Authorities threatening legal consequences, which, in my view, is intended only to intimidate.
This cannot be permitted and I, therefore, allow this writ petition and quash Ext.P1 notice dated 13.12.2017 but leave liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent higher Authorities in the hierarchy of the KCS Act, particularly because his original complaint before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies is stated to be still not disposed of by the said Authority. I do not, however, propose to deal affirmatively with the contentions of Sri.Arun Chandran that this complaint cannot be considered on account of the dismissal of ARC No.2/2012 and I leave it to the Joint Registrar to consider it properly, however, keeping in mind that the aforementioned ARC was dismissed for default without entering into its merits.
I make it clear that if the second respondent approaches the competent Authorities with a proper complaint against the concerned Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the observations in this judgment will not stand in the way of such Authorities in taking action in terms of law.
WP(C).No. 653 of 20188
It is further clarified that nothing contained in this judgment will, in any manner, affect the disposal of the original complaint filed by the second respondent before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and that the said Authority will conclude upon the same in terms of law, untrammeled by the contents of this judgment, adverting specifically to the contentions of the petitioner in this writ petition including that ARC No.2/2016 had earlier been dismissed.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
stu JUDGE
WP(C).No. 653 of 2018
9
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT BEARING NUMBER C.R.B 5264/16 DATED 13.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ARC NO.02/2012 FILED BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ARC NO. 02/2012 PASSED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY ONE DAMODARAN DATED 08.10.2014.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY DAMODARAN DATED 02.01.2016.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR DATED 25.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY IN CHARGE OF THE SOCIETY DATED 10.08.2016.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY IN CHARGE DATED 28.03.2017.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT DATED 21.12.2017 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P. A TO JUDGE.