IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2744 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.R.RAJEEVNATH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NJONDANMAKKAL HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDI, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), IDUKKI, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, PINAVU.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE IDUKKI DISTRICT TAXI DRIVERS CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.1-191, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 2744 of 2010 P ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a member of the 3rd respondent Society. He preferred a complaint against the 3rd respondent regarding irregularities and corruption in making appointments. The 2nd respondent conducted an investigation through his subordinates, found that there were irregularities and therefore, passed an order on 25-09-2008 assuring the petitioner that action would be taken against the erring officers. The 2nd respondent did not thereafter take any action. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.15185/2009. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the application was rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent against the said order. However, the appeal has been rejected by Ext.P5 on the ground that the same is filed after the expiry of sixty days, which is the period fixed for filing the appeal. 2. The petitioner has produced Ext.P2 which is the postal cover in which the order appealed against was received by him. The postal seal on Ext.P2 shows that the petitioner had received WPC.2744/2010 : 2 : the order only on 22-08-2009. He has remitted the fees for preferring the appeal on 08-10-2009 as evidenced by Ext.P4. However, Ext.P5 says that the appeal is seen filed only on 13-10- 2009. 3. It is true that Ext.P1 order is dated 12-08-2009. However, it has been communicated to the petitioner only on 22- 08-2009. Therefore, the period of sixty days for filing an appeal under Section 83(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act can start to run only from 22-08-2009, the date of communication of the order. When the period of sixty days is computed from the date of communication of Ext.P1, the period would expire only on 21-10- 2009. The appeal having been filed on 13-10-2009, the same has been filed within time. Therefore, Ext.P5 rejecting the appeal finding that the same is filed out of time, is unsustainable. Ext.P5 is accordingly quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to take the appeal of the petitioner back to file, to consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, on the merits. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) aks