IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 15871 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.VASUDEVAN, (RETD.JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES), RESIDING AT PARAMPILTHODY HOUSE, MORAYUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION (A), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.29032/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.15871/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.272/A1/09/CO-OP DATED 20/4/2009. P2 : COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.7373/A1/08/CO-OP DATED 20/1/2009. P3 : COPY OF EXPLANATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16/2/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) Nos.15871 & 29032 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of October, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these two writ petitions were working as Joint Registrars, who have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/04/2007 & 31/12/2008 respectively. 2. In so far as WP(C) No.15871/2009 is concerned, the petitioner therein was initially issued Ext.P2, a notice proposing action under Rule 59(b) of Part III - KSR for the reasons stated in the said notice. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 reply denying the allegations. According to the petitioner, no further proceedings were initiated, and the matter stands at that stage. However, he was again issued Ext.P1, yet another show cause notice, referring to a different set of allegations, again proposing action under Rule 59(b) of Part III - KSR. It was on receipt of this notice, WP(C) No.15871/2009 was filed challenging the notice. 3. In so far the petitioner in WP(C) No.29032/2009 is WP(C) Nos.15871 & 29032 of 2009 -2- concerned, as in the previous case, he was also issued Ext.P1 notice proposing proceedings under Rule 59(b) of Part III, KSR. No further action was taken, and thereafter Ext.P2, another show cause notice proposing similar action has been issued. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that these notices are absolutely illegal, and no circumstances warranting proceedings under Rule 59(b) have been made out. He therefore submits that the notices deserve to be interfered with by this Court. 5. As already stated, what is challenged in these writ petitions are show cause notices. Among the petitioners, while the petitioner in WP(C) No.15871/2009 was served Ext.P2 show cause notice, he has submitted Ext.P3 reply. In so far as other show cause notices are concerned, even replies have not been given. It may be true that these notices do not make out a case for proceedings under Rule 59(b) of Part III-KSR. But, however, it is for the petitioners to raise their contentions, and contest the matter. I am not persuaded to think that these notices are issued without WP(C) Nos.15871 & 29032 of 2009 -3- jurisdiction, in which event alone, challenge at this stage will be justified. As at present, since only notices are issued, it is for the petitioners to file their replies, and if they are aggrieved by the final orders that are to be passed, seek their remedies against such orders. However, the petitioners have a grievance that the documents relied on against them have not been disclosed to them, so that they can file effective replies to the show cause notices. This certainly is a matter which needs to be considered. Therefore, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall either make available copies of the documents relied on against the petitioners or at least disclose the materials relied on against, in order to enable the petitioners to file their replies. It is directed that the petitioners will be given two weeks time from the date of furnishing copies or disclosure of materials to file their replies to the show cause notices. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg