IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13820 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE CONSUMERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.T-220, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.G.JANARDHANA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.C.K.SAJEEV SRI.B.VINOD SRI.E.C.BINEESH SRI.N.K.SHYJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SENIOR AUDIT OFFICER (WELFARE), OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR BY SC SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13820 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Consumers' Co-operative Society of the Employees of the Account General's Office filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P4, a communication issued by the 2nd respondent, directing closure of the Society with immediate effect. 2. Facts stated are that, in 2001 Ext.P7 was issued fixing the working timings of the Society, in order to curtail absenteeism of the employees and presence of outsiders in the premises of the Accounts General's Office during working hours. Subsequently, the society was issued Ext.P1 calling upon them to produce certain documents and also requiring them to confine their activities during the timings mentioned therein. On its receipt petitioner filed Ext.P2, where they have explained the necessity to work during 10 a.m. to 5 p.m and requesting that they be allowed to function during the aforesaid timings. A reading of Ext.P2 also shows that the petitioner sought time for production of the documents which were directed W.P.(C) No.13820/09 -2- to be produced in Ext.P1. Subsequently, they were issued Ext.P3, which was followed by Ext.P4 ordering closure of the society. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for the last 46 years the Society has been functioning between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m and that in this respect, there has not been any complaint what so ever against the society. It is also stated that on the allegation of absenteeism, no disciplinary action has been initiated by respondents against any one in the Accountant General's Office. It is also pointed out that two other societies are functioning during the aforesaid timings and no steps whatsoever has been initiated against the aforesaid societies. 4. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, referring to the statement filed by him, urges the circumstances that lead to the fixation of the timings as indicated in Ext.P1. It is stated that soon after the issuance of Ext.P7, a committee consisting of two officers was appointed and they submitted Ext.R2(a) report suggesting that the Society may be directed to regulate their timing schedule as indicated in the report. W.P.(C) No.13820/09 -3- It is stated that it was in pursuance to the report that Ext.P1 was issued and that the direction therein was not complied with. According to him, in order to prevent absenteeism and to prevent presence of outsiders in the office premises, it was necessary to regulate the working of the society. It is stated that the other two Co-operative Societies are Credit Societies and therefore the nature of the function of those societies are incomparable with the functioning of the petitioner society. It is stated that, in all other officer premises in India, belonging to the respondent, the societies are allowed to function in the manner ordered by the respondent. 5. Having heard both sides, I am inclined to think that, if as stated by the petitioner, the Society has been functioning in the manner as claimed by them for the last 46 years, when a change is effected that ought to have been done with notice to the society. I notice that when Ext.P1 was issued, the society filed Ext.P2 reply to the Senior Deputy Accountant General where they have highlighted the necessity of keeping the shop open during the period from 10 a.m to 5 p.m. None of the subsequent communications issued by the first or 2nd respondent show that the contentions urged by W.P.(C) No.13820/09 -4- petitioner in Ext.P2 have been noticed. So much be so, I feel it is only appropriate that the first respondent considers Ext.P1 in the light of Ext.P2 and with notice to the petitioner. I direct the first respondent to consider the matter as above and pass a fresh order in this matter untrammeled by Ext.P4 and taking into account the timing suggested in Ext.R1(a) report also, at any rate within 4 weeks from today. It is directed that, in the meanwhile the petitioner will be permitted to work, as directed by this court by order dated 19.5.2009. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)