IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / D AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36763 of 2010(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAVI RAJAN, HOUSE NO.50, NEAR CTC BUS STAND, MOOLAKADA, MUNNAR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DEVICOLAM TALUK PLANTATIONS WORKERS, CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SODETY LTD., K.382, MUNNAR P.O. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN- 685612. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), PAINAVU - 685603, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) DEVICOLAM - 685613. 4. THE SECRETARY, THE DEVICOLAM TALUK PLANTATIONS WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., K-382, MUNNAR P.O. 5. THE PRESIDENT, THE DEVICOLAM TALUK PLANTATIONS WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., K-382, MUNNAR P.O. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 36763 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is one of the members of the Board of Directors of the first respondent filed this writ petition mainly with the following directions: i. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the 1st respondent or its officers not to take any action based on Ext.P1. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or directions directing 1st respondent to recall Ext.P4. iii.. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take appropriate action against the errant officers of 1st respondent including the 4th and the 5th respondents who have committed the illegal act. Evidently, the first respondent is a society registered under the provisions of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. In the light of a Full Bench decision reported in P.Bhaskaran v. Additional Secretary and others(1987(2)KLT 903), no writ will lie against a Co-operative Society governed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. True that in the light of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in WPC.36763/2010 : 2 : K.Krishnamachariulu v. Sri. Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and others (1997(3)SCC 571). Following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shri.Anadi Mukta Sadguru SMVSJMS v. V.R Rudrani reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 the words 'any person or authority' used in Article 226 are, not to be confined to only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State and it may cover any other person or body performing public duty. In other words, the form of the body concerned is irrelevant and what is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the concerned person or authority to the affected party. The duty is to be adjudged based on the obligation of the other person or authority to the concerned party and therefore, necessarily, one has to look into the pleadings. A bare perusal of the pleadings in this writ petition would reveal that the petitioner has not brought out a case to bring it within the purview of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Consequently, prayer Nos.1 and 2 in the writ petition are held as untenable. 2. As regards the prayer No.3 the contention of the WPC.36763/2010 : 3 : petitioner is that based on his application the second respondent directed the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in pursuance of the directions from the second respondent, the 3rd respondent has already conducted an enquiry and submitted a report before the second respondent. It is further submitted that the second respondent would consider the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously. In view of the said position obtained in this case, I am of the considered view that it is unnecessary to consider the contentions raised in this writ petition on merits at this stage. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition there is no need to issue notice to the respondents 1, 4 and 5 in this proceedings. Based on the above submission made by the learned Government Pleader this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of the report submitted by the 3rd respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a WPC.36763/2010 : 4 : copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner as also to respondents 1,4 and 5. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge