IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25572 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE PRESIDENT, CHERAMANGALAM SHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LT. NO.P-12(D) CHERAMANGALAM.P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIARY DEVELOPMENT O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, PALAKKAD PIN 680 701 2. V.UNNI, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIARY DEVELOPMENT, O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, PALAKKAD. PIN 680 701 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S.MUHAMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 25572 of 2010 V ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the President of Cheramangalam Ksheera Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham Limited No.P-12(D), Cheramangalam P.O., Palakkad. He challenges the proceedings of the first respondent evidenced herein by Ext.P5 by which action is proposed to be initiated under Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969. The allegation against the petitioner is that in spite of there being a direction as mentioned in Ext.P5, he omitted to initiate action against the Secretary of the Society by suspending him from service and thus, the said direction has not been complied with. Therefore, as per Ext.P5, the petitioner was directed to show cause within a period of seven days of receipt thereof as to why action under Section 32 of the Act should not be initiated. Against Ext.P5, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 objection. 2. According to the petitioner, copies of documents referred to as Sl.Nos.1 to 5 in Ext.P5 have not been furnished to him. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to submit his WPC.25572/2010 : 2 : explanation or objections effectively. He is unaware of the materials on the basis of which the said proceedings, Ext.P5, has been issued. However, according to the petitioner, the first respondent is proceeding to pass final orders under Section 32 of the Act without giving an effective opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation or to object to the action proposed against him. It is the further case of the petitioner that the direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Secretary that is made mention of in Ext.P5 has not even been communicated to him. Therefore, it is contended that there is no basis for the action that is proposed to be initiated pursuant to Ext.P5. 3. In view of the fact that Ext.P5 is only a notice directing the petitioner to show cause against the action proposed by the first respondent, I do not think it is necessary to interfere with the same at this stage. However, the petitioner should be given an effective opportunity to submit his explanation or objections to the proposed action. If as a matter of fact, the assertion made by the petitioner that no direction to suspend the Secretary or to initiate disciplinary action against him as mentioned in Ext.P5 has been WPC.25572/2010 : 3 : communicated to the petitioner, then the very basis for the proposed action would disappear. In view of the above, it is absolutely necessary that the petitioner is furnished with copies of all the documents referred to in Ext.P5 and given a further opportunity to submit additional objections, if any, to the action that is proposed. Unless such a procedure is adopted, the hearing that is contemplated under Section 32(1) of the Act would become meaningless. Therefore, the writ petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to finalise the proceedings only after affording an effective opportunity to the petitioner on the lines indicated above. 4. In view of the limited relief sought for in the writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents in this writ petition. I have heard the learned senior Government Pleader also. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to furnish copies of all the documents referred to in Ext.P5 to the petitioner and to give him a further opportunity to furnish additional objections or WPC.25572/2010 : 4 : explanation, if any, in the light of the documents so furnished and to afford him an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Any action as contemplated by Ext.P5 shall be initiated only after such an opportunity of being heard is afforded to the petitioner. The challenge of the petitioner against Ext.P6 is left open. Sd/- (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge