Kerala High Court
Ernakulam Regional Co-Operative Milk ... vs The State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2025
2025:KER:55308
WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS'
UNION LTD. NO. E-150 (D)
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HEAD OFFICE P.B. NO. 2212, EDAPPALLY,
KOCHI, PIN - 682024
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (DAIRY DEVELOPMENT),
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT,
DAIRY DIRECTORATE, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
2025:KER:55308
WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025
2
3 B. SANTHOSH
SENIOR MANAGER (QUALITY ASSURANCE),
ERNAKULAM DAIRY, THRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV
ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN
ADV.JAFFAR KHAN Y., SPL.G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55308
WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, the Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Limited, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Ext.P7 order issued by the 2 nd respondent, the Director, Department of Dairy Development.
2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is a Regional Society having its area of operation at Ernakulam, Thrissur, Kottayam and Idukki Districts. The recruitment and the staff pattern of the petitioner society are governed by Ext.P1. In Ext.P1, Clause 8 of special terms and conditions, it is contemplated as follows:
"8. On exigencies, the Regional Union may require, change of post by shifting a particular post from one Unit to another Unit or from one location to another location. In such cases based on the recommendation of the Personnel Committee of the Regional Union, the Recruitment Committee is fully 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 4 authorized to permit the Regional Union for such temporary shifting of posts by specifying a period applicable for such shifting without altering the total strength of that particular cadre."
3. The petitioner union has initiated recruitment to the post of Senior Manager (Quality Assurance) by issuing a notification dated 02.09.2024. The 3 rd respondent participated in the recruitment process. After the process, it was decided to grant promotion to the 3 rd respondent, Manager (QA), to the post of Senior Manager (QA) as per Ext.P2 dated 28.10.2024. In furtherance of the same, the 2 nd respondent issued an order permitting the Union to promote the 3rd respondent as Senior Manager as per Ext.P3. Based on the same, Ext.P4 order was issued, by the Managing Director of the petitioner, granting promotion to the petitioner and posting him at Ernakulam Dairy. Thereafter, Ext.P5 was issued by the Managing Director, to shift the vacancy of the 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 5 Senior Manager (Quality Assurance), from the Head Office of the petitioner, where this post is sanctioned as per Ext.P1 staff pattern, to Ernakulam Dairy.
4. Based on Ext.P5, the matter was considered by the Personal Committee of the petitioner Union, and in the meeting held on 29.03.2025, the committee has decided to make a recommendation to the Recruitment Committee to shift the post of Senior Manager (Quality Assurance) from the Head Office to the Ernakulam Dairy and to post the 3 rd respondent at Ernakulam Dairy. The said decision was taken with the objection note of the Government nominee. Accordingly the matter has now been placed before the Recruitment Committee for approval and is under process.
5. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent submitted a complaint before the 2nd respondent, against his posting at Ernakulam Dairy, which was taken up by the 2 nd respondent 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 6 and Ext.P7 order was passed. In Ext.P7, the 2 nd respondent directed the petitioner to appoint the 3 rd respondent in the Head Office instead of appointing him at Ernakulam Dairy. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances seeking the following reliefs:
"i. issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit P7 and set aside the same; ii. issued a writ declaring that Exhibit P7 is issued without power, authority and jurisdiction; iii. issue a writ declaring that Exhibit P7 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the KCS Act and the Rules;
iv. dispense with the filing of English translations of vernacular documents; and v. pass such other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
6. Detailed counter affidavits were submitted by the 2 nd and 3rd respondents. In the counter affidavit submitted by the 2nd respondent, the action of issuing Ext.P7 was sought to be 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 7 justified by stating that the said order was passed on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 3 rd respondent. It was also averred that, as per Ext.P6 order, the 3rd respondent was directed to perform duties of lower cadre, which according to the 2nd respondent was unfair and beyond the powers of the Managing Director. In the counter affidavit submitted by the 3rd respondent, the procedure that culminated in Ext.P7 was sought to be justified and according to him, the action of the Managing Director to shift the vacancy without the approval of the recruitment committee was without jurisdiction. Therefore, the relief sought in the writ petition was opposed.
7. I have heard and Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri.A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, Sri.Jaffar Khan Y., learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2, and Sri.P.C. 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 8 Sasidharan, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
8. One of the main contentions raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, issuance of Ext.P7 by the 2nd respondent was without any jurisdiction. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as far as Ext.P7 order is concerned, the same was issued acting upon a complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent, which is produced as Ext.R2(c) and going by the said document it is evident that what is highlighted by the 3rd respondent in the said complaint pertains to the service conditions of the 3 rd respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, by specifically placing reliance upon Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, contended that, it is a matter squarely coming within the scope of the said provision and therefore, the 2nd respondent could not have passed any orders on the said issue, but, the proper procedure is to invoke the remedies contemplated 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 9 under Section 69 of the Act. Even if a complaint is placed before the 2nd respondent, instead of deciding the matter on his own, he should have referred the same to the authorities contemplated under Section 69. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon decisions rendered by this Court in W.P(C) No.5670/2005 (E.K. Augustine v. State of Kerala), F.A.C.T. Service Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Balakrishna Menon K. and Others [2007 (3) KHC 813] and Joseph Mathew v. State of Kerala [2025 (1) KLT 394], wherein, this Court after elaborately considering various provisions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules, including Section 66 and 66A of the Act and Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Society Rules, held that, the powers conferred upon the Joint Registrar under those provisions cannot be exercised in a matter, covered under Section 69 of the Act. By specifically referring to the various 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 10 stipulations contained in Section 69, it was contended by the learned Counsel that, a service dispute is also a matter coming within the purview of the said provision (Section 69(2)
(d)) and therefore, under no circumstances, the 2 nd respondent should have invoked the power and passed an order in the nature of Ext.P7.
9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the 3 rd respondent stoutly opposes the aforesaid contentions. The specific contention raised by the learned Counsel for the 3 rd respondent is that, what led to the issuance of Ext.P7 was not strictly the dispute regarding the service conditions of the petitioners, but, the issue was relating to the noncompliance of mandatory provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules as evidenced by Ext.P1. According to the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, the Managing Director of the petitioner could not have issued an order in the nature of Ext.P5, for 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 11 shifting the post from Head Office to the Ernakulam Diary. Learned Counsel for the petitioner specifically brought the attention of this Court to Clause 8 of the Special Terms and Conditions (Annexure 2(c) to Ext.P1). According to the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, the said provision, only enables the shifting of vacancy upon an exigency being established, and on getting permission from the Recruitment Committee, which in turn shall grant such permission, acting upon the recommendation of the Personnel Committee. It was pointed out that, in this case, even though the Personnel Committee of the petitioner unit had taken a decision to recommend for shifting of vacancies as evidenced by Ext.P6, the same is even now pending before the Recruitment Committee and so long as no decision has been taken by the Recruitment Committee, the same could not have been implemented. According to the learned Counsel for the 3 rd 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 12 respondent, it was in those circumstances Ext.P7 was issued by the 2nd respondent, interdicting the petitioner from implementing the decision taken as per Ext.P5 by directing the petitioner to post the 3rd respondent at the head office.
10. I have carefully gone through the records. As far as the challenge against the sustainability of Ext.P7 is concerned, the specific contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the dispute to be resolved, pertains to the terms and conditions of employment of the 3rd respondent, which can only be adjudicated through the mechanism contemplated under Section 69 of the Act.
11. On the other hand, the specific contention raised by the learned Counsel for the 3 rd respondent is that, what led to issuance of Ext.P7 was by invoking the powers under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules which enables the Joint Registrar, to rescind a resolution of 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 13 the Society or committee of the Society, if the same is against the statutory provision or the bye laws. It was pointed out that, in this case, the decision to shift the post from head office to the Ernakulam Diary was taken in violation of Clause 8 of Annexure 2(c) of Ext.P1, as the same was without the permission of the Recruitment Committee. Hence, the same is beyond the provisions and therefore, issuance of Ext.P7 is justified.
12. In this regard, the statutory stipulations contained in Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules have to be examined. Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act reads as follows:
"69. Disputes to be decided by Co- operative Arbitration Court and Registrar.- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises,-
2025:KER:55308
WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025
14
(a) among members, past
members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or
(b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, a past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society; or
(c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society; or
(d) between the society and any other society; or
(e) between a society and the members of a society affiliated to it ;
or
(f) between the society and 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 15 a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions or any person claiming through such a person;
or
(g) between the society and a surety of a member, past member, deceased member or employee or a person, other than a member, who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; or
(h) between the society and the creditor of the society, or
(i) between the co-operative society and its subsidiaries under section 14AA; or
(j) between the members of the partnership formed under section 14B, such dispute shall be referred to the Co- operative Arbitration Court constituted under section 70A in the case of non-
monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes; and the 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 16 Arbitration Court, or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute and no other court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1) , the following shall also be deemed to be disputes, namely:-
(a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;
(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor, where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;
(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 17 of management or any officer of the society;
Explanation:- A dispute arising at any stage of an election commencing from the convening of the general body meeting for the election shall be deemed to be a dispute arising in connection with the election;
(d) any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of section 80, including their promotion and inter se seniority.
3. xxx
4. xxxx"
Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules reads as follows:
"176. Registrar's power to rescind resolution:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of a registered society, it shall be competent for 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 18 the Registrar to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or the committee of any society, if it appears to him that such resolution is ultra vires of the objects of the soceity, or is against the provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye-laws or of any direction or instructions issued by the Department, or calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is contrary to the better interest of the society."
13. On carefully going through the statutory stipulations contained in Section 69, it can be seen that, it starts with a non obstante clause, which would mean that, it prevails over the other provisions of the Act and other statutory provisions. As per Subsection 2(d) of the Section 69, any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of section 80, including their promotion and inter se seniority are defined as a dispute coming within the purview of Section 69. In this case, going through Ext.R2(c), 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 19 which is the complaint submitted by the 3 rd respondent before the 2nd respondent, what is mentioned is the dispute relating to the impact on the service conditions of the 3rd respondent, due to the decision taken by the petitioner. Conspicuously, the said complaint does not contain, any reference to the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules and the violations thereof.
14. Ext.P7 order is the order passed by the 2 nd respondent acting upon Ext.R2(c). Even though the same refers to the lack of power of the petitioner, in implementing the decision to shift the post from head office to the Ernakulam Diary, without the permission from the recruitment committee, ultimately the direction was something which affects the service conditions of the 3rd respondent. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, when it comes to the powers that can be exercised by the Joint 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 20 Registrar under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, it can be seen that, the same is confined to the orders to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any Society or the committee of any Society. From Ext.P7 order, it can be seen that, none of the resolutions in any meeting of any Society or Committee of the Society were referred to in Ext.P7, but, on the other hand, interference is made, on an order passed by the Managing Director, on the ground that the same violates the statutory provisions. As far as the legal position with regard to the scope of power of the Joint Registrar the provisions of Section 66, 66A and 176, with respect to the matters covered under Section 69 is concerned, it is well settled as per the decisions referred to by the petitioner in F.A.C.T. Service Cooperative Society and Joseph Mathew (supra), which is against the exercise of the power by the 2 nd respondent. With regard to the question as to the description 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 21 of the committee of the Society referred to in Rule 176, that question was also specifically considered by this Court in E.K. Augustine's case (supra) referred to by the petitioner, wherein, this Court, after referring to a Division Bench decision in Malampuzha Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala (W.A. No.1932/2004), held that, the power of the Registrar to rescind a resolution invoking Rule 176, can be invoked only when the resolution is of the Managing Committee and not of the sub committee. It was also observed that, a committee referred to in Rule 176 can only be the committee defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, which means Managing Committee of the Society or a governing body of the Society, to which the management of the Society is entrusted.
15. However, in this case, on going through the contents of Ext.P7 it can be seen that, the 2 nd respondent has 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 22 referred to the decision taken by the Personnel Committee alone and the other orders passed. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, powers under Rule 176 are confined to the situations where, the decision can be taken by the officer concerned, to rescind a resolution passed by the Society or the committee of the Society, which is not the case in Ext.P7. An interference has been made, in an order passed by the Managing Director, that too in a case where, the subject matter touches upon the service conditions of an employee, which comes exclusively within the scope of the Section 69 of the Act. Thus, it is evident that, Ext.P7, being an order, interfering with a dispute specifically falls under Section 69 of the Act, as held by this Court in the decisions referred to above, the 2nd respondent will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same. In the counter affidavit submitted by the 2nd respondent, it is specifically admitted 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 23 that, Ext.P7 was passed acting upon the Ext.R2(c) complaint of the 3rd respondent, which contains only the matters relating to the service disputes of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, it is evident that it is a matter, which falls under Section 69 and therefore the 2nd respondent lacks any jurisdiction to take a decision upon the same and therefore, Ext.P7 is to be interfered with.
16. However, even while making the aforesaid observation, one of the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent cannot be ignored. It is pointed out that, as far as the shifting of a post from one unit to another is concerned, it is governed by Clause 8 in Annexure 2(c) of Ext.P1. The said Clause enables the Regional Union, to shift the post only on establishing exigencies for a temporary period, based on the permission granted by the Recruitment Committee, which has to be taken 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 24 on the recommendation of the Personnel Committee of the regional union. In this case, Ext.P5 is the order passed by the Managing Director of the petitioner to shift the post from the Head Office to Ernakulam Diary, which was later considered by the Personnel Committee as evidenced by Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, the said decision was approved and it was decided to make a recommendation to the Recruitment Committee for granting permission for such shifting. Thus, the matter is now pending before the recruitment committee and a decision in this regard has not been taken so far.
17. As per Clause 8 of Annexure 2(C) of Ext P1 referred to above, the power of the Regional Union to shift the vacancy, can only be exercised, by acting upon the permission granted by the Recruitment Committee, on the recommendations of the Personnel Committee. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, since 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 25 the Personnel Committee has already made a recommendation to shift the post from one unit to another, what remains is the formal permission of the Recruitment Committee and therefore there is nothing wrong in implementing the same. However, going by the scheme of the said provision, it is evident that, the Regional Union is permitted to shift the post, only upon such shifting is permitted by the Recruitment Committee, which is authorized to act upon the recommendations of the personnel committee. Thus, the procedure contemplated under Clause 8 has not attained its finality and it is still in progress. Therefore, the implementation of the same can only be on the permission of the Recruitment Committee. Of course, the learned Counsel for the petitioner specifically highlighted that, as far as the legality of the actions of the petitioner, which resulted in issuance of Exts.P5 and P6 are concerned, so long as they 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 26 are under challenge in this writ petition, it is not necessary to go into those aspects. However, this is a question that incidentally falls within zone of consideration of this Court, as it was also referred to in Ext.P7 and one of the contentions raised by the respondents are also with the same. Moreover, even while upholding the rights of the parties, this court cannot ignore the statutory scheme that is applicable to the issue, so as to ensure that, the ultimate decision taken by this court is not either perpetuating an illegality or otherwise upholding an illegal act of the petitioner.
18. Thus, after considering all the relevant aspects, I find that, issuance of Ext.P7 by the 2 nd respondent was without any jurisdiction, as evidently what is decided in Ext.P7 was with regard to matters falling within Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. As far as the contention regarding the exercise of powers under Rule 176 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 27 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules are concerned, it cannot be said that the same was available to the 2 nd respondent while issuing Ext.P7 in this case, as the said order does not refer to any resolution passed by the Society or the governing committee of the Society.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P7, in the light of the observations made above.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE rpk/SCS 2025:KER:55308 WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2025 28 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17367/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 13/2020/DD DATED 5.11.2020 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
EU/P&A/79/2024/ 4792 DATED 28.10.2024 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DDDKER/2733/ 2024-C DATED 2.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
EU/P&A)/79/2025/431 DATED 31.1.2025 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.
EU/P&A)79/2025/582 DATED 7.2.2025 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER UNION Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE DATED 29.03.2025 Exhibit P6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.03.2025 SUBMITTED TO THE REGISTRAR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
DDDKER/2733/2024-C1 DATED 24.4.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(a) True copy of the letter dated 17.07.2024.
EXHIBIT R2(b) True copy of the letter issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner Union. EXHIBIT R2(c) True copy of the letter dated 01.02.2025.