Kerala High Court
V.V.Saseendran Aged 64 Years vs The State Of Kerala on 1 June, 2011
Author: K. Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/10TH PHALGUNA 1934
WP(C).No. 5742 of 2013 (P)
---------------------------
PETITIONERS:
---------------
1. V.V.SASEENDRAN AGED 64 YEARS
LEKSHMI VIHAR, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY
KOLLAM, PIN-690518.
2. M.D.APPUKUTTAN
MUYERIYIL HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM.
3. F.NAHAS
SANDRAM, ODAYAM, VARKALA P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. P.FELIX
THERUVILTHAIVILAKAM, PUTHUKURICHI.P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. T.K.THANKAPPAN (ARROR)
THAIKKUTTATHIL HOUSE, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
6. V.V.ANITHA
VALAPPIL VEEDU, VALAPPADU BEACH, THRISSUR.
7. T.P.AMBIKA
THAIKOOTTAM PARAMB, ATHANI BEACH, WEST HILL P.O.
KOZHIKODE.
8. M.ANILKUMAR
MAMKUZHIYIL, PARIAPURAM P.O., OTHEMPURAM
THANOOR, MALAPPURAM.
9. K.K.RAMESAN
KOCHUPARAMBIL, CHEMBU P.O., VAIKOM.
10. K.K.DINESAN
KALATHIL VEEDU, ANDAKARANAZHI, PATTANAKKAD
ALAPPUZHA.
11. C.P.KUNHIRAMAN
CHERIYA PURAYIL HOUSE CHALIM
GOPALAPETTAH TEMPLE GATE, P.O.THALASSERY, KANNUR.
12. V.P.BABU
PARAMBATHU VEEDU, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE P.O., VADAKARA
KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
SRI.ALAN PAPALI
SRI. GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FISHERIES & PORTS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES &
DIRECTOR OF FIHERIES
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED NO.FT 738
(MATSYAFED), MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
R BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM
R BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC,MATSYAFED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN WPC 5742/2013
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1.6.2011 FILED BY THE
KERALA PRADESH MATSYA THOZHILALI CONGRESS BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.6.2011 FILED BY
THEERADESA NETHRUVEDI STATE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.6.2011 FILED BY
SRI.AUSTINE GOMEZ, THE PRESIDENT OF A MEMBER SOCIETY, BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.6698/B1/2011/F&P DATED
25.6.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FORWARDING EXT.P1 TO RESPONDENTS 2 AND
3.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.F3/9479/11 DATED
30.6.2011 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE JOINT DIRECTOR
OF FISHERIES DIRECTING THE ENQUIRY INTO EXTS.P2 AND P3.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.F3/9479 DATED 27.7.2011
FORWARDING THE ENQUIRY REPORT WITH ITS ENCLOSURE
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION NO.M.FED./BM/11 DATED
22.8.2011 OF THE CHAIRMAN BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.7.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE
THEERADESA NETHRUVEDI BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.9794/B1/2011/F&P DATED
23.08.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.F3/9479/2011 DATED
01.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE SHOWING THE ALLEGATIONS, REPORT,
EXPLANATION AND THE CHARGE.
EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F3-9479/2011 DATED 7.9.2011
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.3.2012 IN WRIT APPEAL
NOS.1936 OF 2011 AND 31 OF 2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.F3.9479/2011 DATED
12.6.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 28.6.2012 SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F3/17692/11 DATED 31.1.2013 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL
JJ /TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 5742 OF 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st March, 2013.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P16 order passed by the second respondent under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the 'Act' for short). According to the counsel for the petitioners Ext.P16 is unsustainable for the reason that there are absolutely no grounds warranting initiation of action under Section 32 against the petitioners. It is also contended that Ext.P16 has been passed by the second respondent acting under dictation. Therefore, it is contended that Ext.P16 is liable to be set aside.
2. Shri.D.Somasundaram, Special Govt. Pleader points out that the petitioner has got a statutory remedy of appeal provided by Section 83(1)(j) of the Act which the petitioners have no grounds to by pass. For the above reason, it is contended that the petitioners may be relegated to the said remedy. Apart from the above, according to the learned Special Govt. Pleader, Ext.P16 has been passed in view of serious irregularities that were detected in the functioning of the petitioners as the Board of Directors of the WPC 5742/2013 2 Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd causing loss to the said organisation. Adv.George Poonthottam who appears for the third respondent supports the contentions of the learned Special Govt. Pleader and places reliance on the observations of this Court in Ext.P13 judgment to the effect that the consequences including disability of the members of the Managing Committee would follow on the issue of an order under Section 32 of the Act. Since the said judgment has become final, it is contended that the disqualification that the petitioners have entailed in view of Ext.P16 is justified.
3. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are no longer in office, their term having expired. Therefore, the present action, issuing Ext.P16 is politically motivated with the sole intention of ensuring that they were disqualified from contesting any election for two consecutive terms. For the above purpose, instructions have been issued from the office of the Chief Minister to the second respondent, it is contended. In view of the fact that Ext.P16 has been issued acting under dictation, it is contended that availing the alternative remedy by way of appeal to the Government would only be a futile exercise. WPC 5742/2013 3
4. Heard Adv.P.K. Vijayamohanan for the petitioners, learned Special Govt. Pleader as well as Adv.George Poonthottam. The counsel for the petitioners places reliance on an endorsement that is seen in Ext.P1 which reads " Please look into this and inform me the position" which is signed by the Chief Minister. Reference is also made to Ext.P4 communication from the Government seeking a report on the complaint about irregularities, urgently for the reason that the file was to be submitted to the Chief Minister. Ext.P5 is another communication where it is mentioned that reply had to be given to the office of the Chief Minister. Ext.P9 is yet another communication on the same lines. Though the communications would indicate that the matter was being followed up by the office of the Chief Minister, the communications do not justify a presumption that Ext.P16 has been issued, acting under dictation. The above allegation is vehemently disputed by the learned Special Govt. Pleader who refers to page 16 of Ext.P16 where the second respondent has considered the said allegation and refuted the same. It is not possible to conclude that Ext.P16 has been issued acting under dictation, on the basis of the material available on record. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the said contention can be accepted.
WPC 5742/2013 4
5. Since the statute provides a remedy by way of appeal under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act it is for the petitioners to exhaust the said remedy. Therefore, without going into any of the contentions raised before me the petitioners are relegated to their appellate remedy. This writ petition is, accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to challenge Ext.P6 in appeal under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj /True copy/
P.S.to Judge
WPC 5742/2013 5