IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21238 of 2008(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- P.AYOOB, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O KUNHIMOIDU MASTER (LATE), PERINGATTU THODIYIL HOUSE, YASER NILAYAM, POST IRIMBILIYAM, VIA. VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (AUDIT), KANNUR 2. RAIDCO KERALA LIMITED HEAD OFFICE STADIUM COMPLEX, KANNUR. 3. SECRETARY, IRIMBILIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IRIMBILIYAM, MALAPPURAM. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R2 BY ADV.SRI.M.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C)No.21238 of 2008-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Adv.M.Sasindran appears for the second respondent. Learned Senior Government Pleader appears for the first respondent. Notice to the third respondent is dispensed with. 2.The petitioner had, at an earlier point of time, worked for the Irimbiliyam Grama Panchayat, the Secretary of which is the third respondent. The second respondent RAIDCO Kerala Limited sued that Grama Panchayat before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies by initiating arbitration proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969. With the passage of time, it appeared that certain former employees of the Grama Panchayat are necessary parties to the arbitration proceedings. WP(C)21238/2008 -: 2 :- Accordingly, they were sought to be impleaded. Following that, though the petitioner was brought on record and notified of the proceedings, he was not given the copies of the pleadings or the documents and was, therefore, effectively prevented from contesting the matter in spite of the fact that he took refuge even under the Right to Information Act notwithstanding the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. It was under such circumstances that the petitioner was compelled to file this writ petition. 3.The facts noticed above would show that the petitioner is entitled to the pleadings and documents on the basis of which the arbitration proceedings in question are being held, if it is against the petitioner also. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed directing the first respondent not to pass final orders on ARC.68/03 without giving the WP(C)21238/2008 -: 3 :- petitioner sufficient opportunity of hearing after providing the documents in that case and also opportunity to file objections and to contest the matter on merits. The petitioner should have the opportunity to adduce the evidence, if he desires. There is no reason why the same yardstick is applied to any other person who is also impleaded in the proceedings that led to the issuance of Ext.P1 notice. It is further directed that the third respondent shall also issue to the petitioner within two weeks of his application any document which he may seek for. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/