Kerala High Court
V.Dinakaran vs The Registrar on 31 January, 2017
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 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/18TH MAGHA, 1938
WA.No. 247 of 2017 () IN WP(C).38904/2016
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 38904/2016 of HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 31-01-2017
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
---------------------------------
V.DINAKARAN,
EX.M.L.A., CHAIRMAN, MANAGING COMMITTEE, MATSYAFED,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. THE REGISTRAR,
FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. SRI.V.MANOMOHANAN,
FISHERIES JOINT DIRECTOR(SOUTH ZONE),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. MR.YESURAJAN,
PRESIDENT, KOCHUTHURA FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SRI.MOHAMMED HASHIM, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R3 BY ADV.SRI.N.RAGHURAJ
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
jg-10/2
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.
....................................................................
W.A.No.247 of 2017
....................................................................
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2017.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel appearing for other respondents.
2.This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge refusing to interfere with the action taken following invocation of Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, 'Act', for short, by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. (Matsyafed) is an apex co-operative society. Section 65 of the Act was invoked and an order authorising enquiry under that provision was ordered, whereunder the second respondent was appointed as the enquiry officer. He required the officers enlisted in Ext.P3 to visit and collect information through different officers WA247/17 -2- of Matsyafed. Consequential proceedings are under challenge on the plea that the action taken by the second respondent in enlisting and directing different other officers to collect information amounts to sub-delegation of power which has been delegated under Section 65 of the Act by the first respondent - Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to the second respondent enquiry officer. It is also pointed out that Ext.P4 notice was issued by the second respondent to the society calling for information even before the enquiry had reached anywhere.
3.The learned single Judge held that the power to delegate includes power to delegate in favour of different persons and not only to one person, though in terms of Section 65(1)(f) of the Act, it may apparently appear that the enquiry could be delegated only to one person. The learned single Judge referred to and relied on the decisions of the Apex Court and also general principles available in the arena of interpretation of clauses and in statutes to hold so. But, we think that even such an endeavour is not necessary WA247/17 -3- because we do not see that there is any sub-delegation as understood in law by the second respondent to any other persons enumerated in Ext.P3. The delegation made under Section 65(1)
(f) of the Act by the first respondent is to the second respondent. All that the second respondent has done through Ext.P3 is to enlist officers for the purpose of collecting information from different officers of Matsyafed. They are not authorised to take any independent view on the basis of those materials, and the facts that they report to the second respondent have to be independently considered by the second respondent in formulating his opinion, which will go as a report to the first respondent. In that view of the matter, the primary authority of the first respondent, which was delegated to the second respondent on the basis of clause (f) of Section 65(1) of the Act, does not get further delegated by the second respondent to the officers enlisted in Ext.P3. Therefore, the case in hand is not at all one of sub-delegation, which would fall in the wise of a delegate extending the delegated power to a further delegate. WA247/17 -4-
4.The aforesaid position notwithstanding, we see that the learned single Judge had also adopted a practical view to consider and hold that Matsyafed being an apex body is a huge institution with several branches spread across and it is humanly impossible for one person to conduct inspection even if it was ordered to be done so, and therefore, under Ext.P3 different persons are required to visit different officers for collecting information and reporting to the second respondent. On the scales of justice, we do not see that the said finding calls for any interference at our hands.
5.Though there is some mention in the writ petition of political considerations in ordering the enquiry, we see that no person is impleaded with any allegation of political bias, though bias merely of such a nature cannot be assumed or attributed exclusively on the basis of a political identity of a particular person who is in the office of a democratic institution.
WA247/17 -5- For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ appeal, therefore, fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg-7/2