IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29081 of 2008(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- P.A.BALAN MASTER, PAYATHUPARAMBIL, AVINISSERY P.O.,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.JAIBY PAUL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, DIRECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. ERNAKULAM REGIONAL MILK PRODUCERS UNION NO.E 150 (D) APCOS, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI. B.S. KRISHNAN, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.29081 of 2008-K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Adv.Sri.K.Anand appears for the third respondent. 2.The petitioner, a member of a primary milk co- operative society, is its nominee to the third respondent society. He has been disqualified on the ground that his primary society was not contributing milk in terms of the bye-law requirement. When he moved this Court earlier, the second respondent was directed to decide the issue and to defer enforcement of the decision by two weeks. The intention was that the petitioner will have sufficient time to move the appellate authority against any decision adverse to him since, according to him, he had been deeply involved in the co-operative activities for more than a decade now. Unfortunately, though he filed WP(C)29081/08 -: 2 :- Ext.P4 appeal against the decision of the second respondent holding that he is disqualified and also filed Ext.P5 application for stay pending that appeal, no order has been passed, either way, on Ext.P5, though the period of two weeks is to end shortly. In the aforesaid circumstances, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the third respondent, without entering on merits, this writ petition is ordered directing that status-quo as on today shall be maintained in relation to the membership of the petitioner in the third respondent for a period of four weeks from now or until an order is issued on Ext.P5 application for stay, whichever is later. It is further directed that if an order is not issued on Ext.P5 for a period of two months from now, the order of status quo issued hereby will continue till Ext.P4 appeal is finally decided. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Sha/031008 JUDGE.