IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 22386 of 2007(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.A. BABU, KUNDIL VEEDU, P.O., PULLOOR, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE PULLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 550, PO PULLOOR, THRISSUR-680683, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1 SRI.P.V.DIPU FOR R1 R2 & R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.22386 OF 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.8.2004 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 13.8.2004 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.9.2004 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.9.2004 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.12.2004 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.2.07 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. / TRUE COPY / THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.22386 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Alleging that the petitioner was illegally removed from the service of the first respondent, he invoked Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The Joint Registrar, exercising the powers of the Registrar, held that the petitioner was only a salesman on contract basis and that the society takes a stand that there was shortage in the funds handled by the petitioner, in relation to transactions of sale of cattle field and other materials. The Registrar stated that the removal of the petitioner was for good reasons. That decision, Ext.P5, is affirmed by the Government in appeal, as per Ext.P6 order. 2. The quality of consideration in Exts.P5 and P6 does not include any specific adjudication on the question of any misappropriation though it is also noticed that the society was proceeding to recover the amounts by initiating legal proceedings. The findings in Exts.P5 and P6 by themselves, though not wholly sufficient to turn down the case of the petitioner, it also needs to be noticed that after Act 1 of 2000 the petitioner was entitled to invoke the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for arbitration/decision for resolution of the disputes which fall exclusively within the domain of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, thereby taking it away from the pale of Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. W.P.(C) No.22386 of 2007 2 3. Under the aforesaid circumstances while leaving the petitioner with liberty to initiate arbitration proceedings in relation to his disputes with the first respondent society, Exts.P5 and P6 decisions are vacated without prejudice to the contentions of either party in the arbitration proceedings. Writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE vns