IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35651 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING WORKERS WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.1645 KARAMANA P.O., VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MR.SUKUMARAN, MALATHY BHAVAN, VEMBAYAM, KUTHIRAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 615. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 35651 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed mainly seeking for a direction to the second respondent to take a decision regarding the maintainability of ARC No.161/2009 pending before it in the next hearing date. The further prayer is for a declaration that the second respondent has not been conferred with the jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute arising out of ouster of a managing committee member from the office of Honorary Secretary. The said ARC has been filed by the first respondent who is a director board member of the petitioner society. As per resolution passed by the petitioner society, he has been functioning as its Honorary Secretary. The Society had subsequently passed Exts.P3 and P4 resolutions. As per the same the first respondent was removed from the post of Honorary Secretary and another person has been selected by the Managing Committee to function as the Honorary Secretary. It is challenging the same that first respondent has preferred the above mentioned ARC. On receipt of notice in the proceedings in WPC.35651/2010 : 2 : ARC No.161/2009 the petitioner society has entered appearance and filed a written statement. They have specifically raised an objection in the written statement regarding the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to entertain the said arbitration case viz., ARC No.161/2009. It has been specifically raised in paragraph 4 of the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant as hereunder:- “Rescinding of a resolution is the administrative function of the statutory authority. This Hon'ble court has no jurisdiction to rescind or set aside a resolution taken by the Board. Therefore the case is liable to be dismissed.” As already noticed, the limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the second respondent to consider the question of maintainability of ARC No.161/2009 before proceeding further with the same. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. Obviously, in the written statement (Ext.P7 herein) the petitioner/defendant in ARC No.161/2009 raised a specific objection regarding the maintainability of ARC No.161/2009. When such an objection has been raised specifically in the written statement, it will only be appropriate to the second respondent to consider it before proceeding further. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second WPC.35651/2010 : 3 : respondent to consider the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of ARC No.161/2009 after hearing all the parties concerned, and decide on the said issue. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge