Kerala High Court
India Coffee Board Workers ... vs State Of Kerala on 9 August, 2016
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/18TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 22447 of 2012 (E)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
NO 4227 THRISSUR P.B.NO 184 PIN 680001 REP. BY ITS
SECRETARY VARGHESE S/O.THOMAS
BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
LABOUR & REHABILITATION (A) SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
2. K.K.RAJESH, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.KUMARAN KADALIKKATTIL HOUSE,
AVITTATHOOR P.O 680683 IRINJALAKUDA THRISSUR
3. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PEERUMEDU IDUKKI DISTRICT
R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.ELIYAS
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.DILEEP VARGHESE
SMT.TESMY VARGHEESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09-08-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 17554/2016, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 22447 of 2012 (E)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
P1: COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF DESABHMANI DAILY
DT 252/2008.
P2: COPY OF LETTER ISSUED TO R2 BY THE PETITIONER
ON 01/04/2008.
P3: COPY OF LETTER ISSUED TO R2 BY THE PETITION ON
11/7/2008.
P4: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE R3 ON 312/2010.
P5: COPY OF AWARD PASSED BY R3 IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO.
154/2010 DT 10/8/2011.
P6: COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY R2 BEFORE THE PETITIONER
ON 11/6/2012.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
bp
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
W.P.(C).Nos. 22447/2012 & 17554/2016
==================
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The prayers in W.P.(C).No.22447/2012 filed by the petitioner, who is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, are as follows:
"i. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari with appropriate directions to the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
ii. to grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. In the facts of the above case, the petitioner-employer had taken disciplinary action against the 2nd respondent workman for alleged unauthorised absence from duty, which ultimately resulted in the employer issuing dismissal order against the workman. Aggrieved by that the respondent workman had challenged the said order of dismissal by taking recourse to the remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act and the matter was referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, who, by the impugned Ext.P-5 award rendered on 10.8.2011 in I.D.No. W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 2 :-
154/2010 had held that the impugned dismissal is illegal and further ordered that the workman is to be reinstated in service by the employer with backwages. The petitioner-employer challenged the said impugned Ext.P-5 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal by filing the abovecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) No. 22447/2012.
3. Heard Sri.V.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (employer) in W.P.(C).No.22447/2012, as well as for respondent No.1 in W.P.(C).No.17554/2016 and also Sri.Dileep Varghese, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent (workman) in W.P.(C).No. 22447/2012, who is also appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 17554/2016.
4. The issue as to whether the workmen under the service of a co-operative society can agitate their disputes like termination of service including dismissal from service by invoking remedies under the Industries Disputes Act, has now been considered in detail by a Larger Bench (5-judges) this Court in the case Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Santhosh (W.A.No.2516/2009 and connected cases, common judgment dated 14.9.2015) reported in 2015 (4) KLT 163 (L.B), in which, the majority of their Lordships of the Larger Bench has laid down the W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 3 :-
following principles of law in para 69 thereof, which reads as follows:
"69. The proposition as laid down above cannot be disputed but in the case before the Apex Court in Premier Automobiles Ltd. (supra), the question of creation of any bar for entertaining the dispute by any other court, except the Forum provided under the Special Act was not in issue. The question as to whether the provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 overrides the State Act by virtue of State Legislation passed with the assent of President was not under consideration. The preposition in Premier Automobiles Ltd. (supra), shall be applicable in a case where it is open for the workmen to elect any of the two remedies permissible to him.
The above case has no application in the facts of the present case in view of the fact that the 1969 Act being a special enactment containing the mechanism for settlement of dispute notwithstanding anything contrary to any existing law including the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the foregoing discussions our answer to the questions which have come up for consideration are as follows:
i. Section 69 of 1969 Act as originally enacted contemplates that disputes relating to service between Co- operative Society and its employees be referred to Registrar under Section 69 of the Act and there is no contemplation of reference of dispute of employees to the Labour Court for decision.
ii. Section 69 of the 1969 Act as originally enacted intended to override other contrary provision in any existing law including the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
iii. The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 was enacted with the Presidential assent.
iv. The amendment Act 1 of 2000, amending Section 69 of the 1969 Act was made in abundant caution for explaining and clarifying the statutory scheme. Amendments made to Section 69 of the Act by amendment Act 1 of 2000 are not repugnant to any provisions of the 1947 Act and the amendment cannot be held to be inoperative.
v. The provision of Act 1 of 2000 did not impinge any provisions of the 1947 Act and cannot be held to be void or inoperative, since the inconsistent provisions of the 1947 Act regarding settlement of disputes of workman of a co-operative society had already been overridden by Section 69 of the 1969 Act as originally enacted.
W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 4 :-
mattersviincluding disciplinary proceedings against the employees, and vii. For entertaining a dispute regarding service officers of the Co-operative Society it is the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 which alone is entitled to exercise the jurisdiction. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any such dispute.
viii. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Cooperative Society v. Michael Sebastian as well as other judgments laying down the proposition that Co-operative Arbitration Court and Labour Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction do not lay down the correct law.
ix. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Balachandran v. Deputy Registrar does not lay down the correct law in so far as it held that as per Section 69 of the Act the service dispute of the employees and officers of the Co-operative Societies cannot be adjudicated by the Registrar. The judgment of the Full Bench in Sherly's case (supra) in so far as it holds that Labour Court shall have jurisdiction to decide the disputes of dismissal of employee of Cooperative Societies does not lay down the correct law."
In para 70, it was also held by the Larger Bench as follows:
Appeals"70. Writ Petitions in the following manner:
andIn view of our answers as above, we allow all the Writ A. W.A. No.184 of 2010 is allowed. The judgment of learned Single Judge dated 04.12.2009 is set aside and W.P.(C) No.27909 of 2009 is allowed holding that the 1st respondent has no authority to refer the dispute between the petitioner and 3rd respondent by Ext.P1 reference order dated 17.07.2009. It shall however be open for the 3rd respondent to invoke the provisions of Section 69 of the 1969 Act within one month from today.
B. W.A. No. 2516 of 2009 is allowed. The judgment of learned Single Judge dated 13.08.2009 is set aside and W.P.(C) No.30854 of 2007 is allowed and the award Ext.P1 dated 17.10.2009 is set aside. It shall however be open for the 1st respondent to invoke the provisions of Section 69 within a period of one month from today.
C. W.A. No. 764 of 2010 is allowed. The judgment of learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2010 is set aside and W.P.(C) No.12949 of 2010 is allowed. The reference order Ext.P5 and all consequential proceedings are set aside. It shall however be open for the 2nd respondent to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 69 within one W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 5 :-
month from today."
5. Summarising the main conclusions of the aforementioned Larger Bench ruling, their Lordship of the Larger Bench held in para 132 thereof as follows:
"132. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Division Bench judgment in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co-operative Society v. Michael Sebastian (2010 (1) KLT 938) and the Full Bench judgments in Balachandran v. Deputy Registrar (1978 KLT 249 (F.B.)) as well as Sherly v. Parappuram Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. (2007 (1) KLT 809 (F.B.)) do not require re-consideration and the legal position, as it obtains under S.69 of the 1969 Act prior to its amendment by Act 1 of 2000 and after its amendment by the said Act, is that the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals constituted under the I.D. Act is not ousted and is concurrent. Judgments of this Court, taking the contrary view, do not lay down the law correctly and are overruled. In the light of the above, these Writ Appeals in which reference orders passed under S.10(1)(c) of the I.D. Act and the awards passed by the Labour Courts are under challenge, are only to be dismissed and we do so."
6. In the light of the aforementioned legal principles well settled in the aforestated Larger Bench ruling of this Court, it is only to be held that the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute between the aforementioned employer and the workman and therefore the impugned award dated 10.8.2011 [Ext.P-5 in W.P.(C).No. 22447/ 2012/Ext.P-5 in W.P.(C).No.17554/2016] is set aside.
7. W.P.(C).No.17554/2016 has been filed by the aforestated workman anticipating that in view of the aforementioned Larger W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 6 :-
Bench ruling, the aforementioned award passed in his favour is liable to be set aside, it is prayed by the workman that this Court may entertain the issue regarding his dismissal from service as there is a patent violation of the statutory mandate of Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (framed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969) inasmuch as the impugned dismissal from service was imposed by the employer without conducting an inquiry and without following the procedures envisaged in that rule and that there is a patent infraction of the statutory rule. Therefore, it is contended by the workman that this Court has jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate the said dispute between the workman and the employer by virtue of the Full Bench ruling in John v. Liquidator reported in 2006(1) KLT 11 (FB), which has been affirmed in the Larger Bench ruling of this Court in the case Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala reported in 2015(1) KLT 849 (LB).
8. It may be noted that earlier a Full Bench of this Court in the case P.Bhaskaran & others v. Addl. Secretary & others reported in 1987(2) KLT 903 p.913, has held as follows:
W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 7 :-
'30. We, therefore, hold that no writ will lie against a Co- operative Society governed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and these writ petitions will have to be dismissed on that score.
31. The counsel appearing for the societies have, however, assured that they will mould relief to the petitioners and persons similarly situate in their respective societies in accordance with the principles settled by this Court in this decision on the interpretation of rule 200. In view of the fact that the Circular already issued by the Registrar and impugned in these writ petitions are quashed, the Registrar will issue fresh Circulars incorporating the principles stated in this Judgement and communicate the same to all Societies. These Original Petitions are disposed of accordingly.'
9. Later, another Full Bench of this Court in the case John v. Liquidator reported in 2006(1) KLT 11 (FB), had held that Art.226 of the Constitution does not admit any of the limitation on the powers of the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction vested in that Article and that the same can be invoked against any person subject to the clear restraints on such judicial exercise of power and that it is not necessry that person or authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed, need be a public authority or an official and mandamus would also lie even against a company constituted by a statute, for the purpose of fulfilling public responsibilities and that the words "any person or authority" used in Art.226 need not necesssarily be confined to statutory authorities or instrumentalities of the State and they may cover any other person or body performing public duty and that a writ will lie against a Co-operative W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 8 :-
Society only when the duty imposed by the Co-operative Society is of a public nature or where there is infringement of any statutory rules by such a Co-operative Society. Considering the aforementioned two Full Bench rulings, a Larger Bench of this Court in the case Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala reported in 2015(1) KLT 849 (LB) has held as follows, in paras 13 and 19 thereof:
"13. Thus the Full Bench in paragraphs 27 to 30 of Bhaskaran (supra) has noticed the test to determine as to whether a body is an authority under Article 12 or not. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition, as laid down by the Full Bench in the above paragraphs, regarding the broad tests for determining a authority under Article 12.
But, as referred above, present is not a case where there is any foundation laid down that respondents 2 to 4 are 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12. In Bhaskaran (supra), the Full Bench held that the Co-operative Society did not fulfill the test of Article 12. The discussion in the judgment was confined to only one aspect that is whether the Co- operative Society was authority within the meaning of Article 12 or not. Thus, the said ratio of the Full Bench judgment has to confine only to the effect that the Writ Petition shall lie against a Co-operative Society when it is an authority within the meaning of Article 12. We shall hereinafter consider further judgments and law laid down by the Apex Court regarding maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226, even if the Co-operative Society does not come under Article 12. Writ Petition has been entertained in several other circumstances and facts. Hence the Full Bench judgment cannot be read as holding that Writ Petition will lie only against Co-operative Society which is State or authority within the meaning of Article 12. Upto that extent, we approve the law laid down by the decision in Bhaskaran (supra).
x x x x x
19. Coming to Part IXB of the Constitution which has been inserted by the 97th Amendment, it contains several constitutional provisions which regulate incorporation, number and term of members, election of the members of the Board and superannuation. Obviously, any action of any Co-operative Society if it is in breach of any of the constitutional provisions, that can be made subject matter of the Writ W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 9 :-
Petition. Present is not a case where there is any issue pertaining to any violation of Part IXB. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the above questions are as follows:
i) The Writ Petitions against Co-operative Societies are maintainable in certain circumstances. When the action complained in the Writ Petition is of any statutory violation on the part of the Co-operative Society, a Writ Petition will lie. The action of the Co-operative Society, if falls in a public domain or breach of the public duty is complained of, writ may also lie.
However, in the absence of breach of any statutory duty or public duty, a Writ Petition cannot be entertained against a Co-operative Society.
ii) The judgment of the Full Bench in Bhaskaran (supra) confines to only consideration of a Co-operative Society under Article 12. In regard to Co-operative Society which does not fall under Article 12, writ cannot be maintainable against the Co-operative Society on that basis. However, as we have already observed by considering issue No.(i), Writ Petition may be maintainable against Co-operative Society in the circumstances mentioned therein. Thus the ratio of the judgment in Bhaskaran (supra) is approved only to above extent.
iii) The Full Bench judgment in John (supra) lays down the correct law and we approve the said judgment.
iv) The present Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
Therefore, it is by now well established that a writ remedy envisaged under Art.226 of the Constitution of India would be maintained even against a co-operative society, so long as the duty owed by the co-operative society is of public nature or when there is clear infringement of statutory rules by such a co-operative society. But as the Full Bench of this Court in John v. Liquidator reported in 2006(1) KLT 11 (FB) has held that exercise of this extra ordinary jurisdiction vested in the High Court is also restricted by wise and clear restraints evolved through judicial decisions and W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 10 :-
therefore, ordinarily a High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution will not go beyond those wholesome inhibitions except in such situations, which justify a "timely judicial interdict or mandate".
10. As the dispute between the employer and the workman in a case like this, involves, not only questions of law, but also questions of fact as well as mixed questions of law and fact, it only appropriate that the workman is relegated to the remedy provided before the Co-operative Arbitration Court as provided in the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the rules framed thereunder. As a matter of fact, a reading of para 70 of the Larger Bench ruling in 2015 (4) KLT 163 (LB), it can be seen that their Lordships of the Larger Bench ordered that the workmen concerned in all those matters were to approach the Co-
operative Arbitration Court, constituted as per the Co-operative Societies Act, by invoking the provisions of Sec.69 of the said Act, within one month from the date of the Larger Bench judgment. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the employer that following the aforesaid Larger Bench ruling, very many cases have been disposed of in identical terms as the one W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 11 :-
contained para 70 of the Larger Bench ruling and all these workmen have consistently been relegated by this Court to the said statutory remedy by virtue of the ruling of the Larger Bench. In that view of the matter, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the dispute between the employer and the workman as projected in this case need not be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and that judicial discretion and precedents require that the matter raised by the workman is only to be relegated to the State Co-operative Arbitration Court, as per the provisions contained in Sec. 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.
11. However Sri.Dileep Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the workmen submits that the workman is having no means of livelihood or income by virtue of dismissal from service and that it would be extremely hard for him to conduct litigation in this matter any further before the statutory authority. Taking into consideration the said submission made by the workman, this Court had ascertained from the Kerala Legal Services Authority regarding the details of the legal aid scheme made available through the District Legal Services Authority and other authorities constituted as per the W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 12 :-
provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It has been brought to notice Sec.2(1)(a) of the Legal Services Act, 1987, envisages that legal aid can be provided to a person for a 'case' which includes a suit or any other proceedings before a court.
Sec.2(1)(aaa) defines the 'court' as a civil, criminal or revenue court and includes any tribunal or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to exercise the judicial or quasi-
judicial functions. Going by this scheme of the constitution of the Co-operation Arbitration Court per the provisions contained in Sec.69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, this Court is the considered opinion that the said forum, viz., the State Co-operative Arbitration Court, will also come within the broad definition of a 'court' as envisaged in Sec.2(1)(aaa) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Sec.2(c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, defines "legal services" to include the rendering of any service in the conduct of any case or other legal proceedings before any court or other authority or tribunal and giving advice on any legal matter.
Sec.12 of the said Act deals with the criteria for giving the legal services, wherein it is made clear that every person who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under the said W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 13 :-
Act, if that person, is
(a) a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
(b) a victim of trafficking in human beings or beggar as referred to in Article 23 of the Constitution;
(c) a women or a child;
(d) a person with disability as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995;
(e) a person under circumstances of undeserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or industrial disaster; or
(f) an industrial workman; or
(g) in custody, including custody in a protective home within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956) or in a juvenile home within the meaning of clause (j) of section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (53 of 1986);
or in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987); or
(h) in receipt of annual income less than rupees One Lakh or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the State Government, if the case is before a court other than the Supreme court.
Sec.13 of the said Act dealing with entitlement of legal services provides as follows:
Sec.13. Entitlement to legal services.--
Persons who satisfy all or any of the criteria specified in section 12 shall be entitled to receive legal services provided that the concerned Authority is satisfied that such person has a prima facie case to prosecute or to defend.
An affidavit made by a person as to his income may be regarded as sufficient for making him eligible to the entitlement of legal services under this Act unless the concerned Authority has reason to disbelieve such affidavit.
W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 14 :-
From the scheme of the said Act, an aggrieved party like the present workman can approach the District Legal Services authority for legal aid. It is brought to notice by both sides, that the Co-operative Arbitration Court, having territorial jurisdiction in the present matter is the one based at Kozhikode. Accordingly, it is made clear that the workman in this case will be at liberty to approach the Chairman/ Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, Kozhikode, for grant of legal aid and he should also produce relevant materials including income certificate to prove that his income is less than rupees one lakh or within the limits as prescribed by the State Government as envisaged in Sec.12(h) of the Legal Services Act, 1987 and if such an appropriate application is made, the competent authority of the District Legal Services Authority, Kozhikode, will ensure that adequate consideration is given to such application and necessary action may be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder to decide whether the workman can be provided with legal services for the conduct of his litigation before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Kozhikode, as referred to hereinabove. While determining the income of the dismissed W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 15 :-
workman herein, the competent revenue/village officer concerned need not take into account the Sec.17B wages paid to him until now as that would stop now due to the setting aside of the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal and all other aspects alone need to take into account in issuing his income certificate. If the petitioner is found to be eligible as per the Act and the scheme, the District Legal Services Authority may take steps to ensure that a competent experienced Advocate, who has sufficient exposure in the labour and employment litigations, is nominated so as to represent the cause of the above workman to appear before the above said forum.
12. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
(i) The impugned award dated 10.8.2011 in I.D.No.154/2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki [Ext.P-5 in W.P.(C).No. 22447/2012 and Ext.P-5 in W.P.(C).No.17554/2016] is set aside.
In case the workman in these case files requisite petition before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Kozhikode, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, then the same shall be entertained on merits by the said court, without going into the issue of delay. However, if there is any delay on the part of the petitioner in preferring such application/petition before the aforementioned court within the stipulated time lime, then the condonation of such delay therefrom may be considered by that court based on the delay condonation application that may be submitted by the workman.
W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 16 :-
(ii) The workman will be at liberty to make necessary application for securing legal services, by approaching the Chairman/Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, Kozhikode, by filing requisite application along with necessary materials, upon which, the same shall be processed and decided in accordance with law and as indicated in the previous portion of this judgment.
(iii) Both the employer and the workman will be at liberty to submit their necessary pleadings as well as adduce evidence, documentary as well as oral.
(iv) The Co-operative Arbitration Court, Kozhikode, will take all reasonable endeavours possible under the circumstances, to ensure that the main matter is disposed of without much delay, preferably within four months from the date of first appearance of both the parties, at any rate, within an outer time limit of six months from the date of first appearance of both parties before that forum.
(v) The petitioner will forward a copy of this judgment to the competent village officer/revenue official concerned who is competent to issue the income certificate, along with his application for issue of income certificate.
(vi) The Registry will forward a certified copy of this judgment to the Chairman/Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Kozhikode for information and further action, if so required. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petitions (Civil) stand finally disposed of.
sdk+ ALEXANDERSd/-
THOMAS, JUDGE
///True Copy///
P.S. to Judge
W.P.(C).22447/12&c.c - : 17 :-