Kerala High Court
The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... vs Sacheendran Nair on 18 October, 2016
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/20TH POUSHA, 1938
WA.No. 38 of 2017 IN WP(C).18894/2016
------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 18894/2016 of
HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18-10-2016
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT 1 & 2 IN THE WPC:
---------------------------------------
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL)
CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-690001.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY Sr.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMAD HASHIM
(Spl.GP, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC:
--------------------------------------------
1. SACHEENDRAN NAIR
CHIEF PROMOTER, SARASA BHAVAN, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE,
SOORANAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. J.MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI
JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
CHANGETHARAYIL (DEVASREE), THEKKUM MURIMEKKU,
THAZHAVA P.O., KOLLAM DITRICT.
BY SRI.D.SREEKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ami/
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
W.A.No.38 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2017
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the appellants. The State of Kerala and Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies have filed this appeal challenging an interim order passed by the learned single Judge. While the plea projected by the learned Senior Government Pleader is that the operation of Section 7(1)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ought not to have been stayed, we think that the said issue can be raised by the State before the learned single Judge by filing a counter affidavit and bringing up the matter for final hearing. He makes reference to an interlocutory order issued on 20.10.2016 in W.A.No.1684 of 2016, but the impugned interlocutory order has been issued by the learned single Judge on 18.10.2016. That position notwithstanding, the interim order does not revolve around the sustainability or otherwise of W.A.38 of 2017 :-2-:
Section 7(1)(c) alone. There are different other grounds referable to the judgment referred to in the impugned order. Under such circumstances, we do not find our way to hold that the impugned interlocutory order is issued without duly adverting to and considering the relevant facts and factors. The impugned order is not vitiated by non-application of mind or any jurisdictional error or illegality. We, therefore, dismiss this writ appeal, without prejudice to the State's right to agitate the matter before the learned single Judge, since all questions would then be open for consideration at final hearing.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ami/12.1.17 //True copy// P.A.to Judge