IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32566 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VETTICKACHAL KARSHAKA SAMITHI (REG.NO.K 531/86), VALAKKATTUKUNNU, KONDADU, RAMAPURAM BAZAR. P.O, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, E.J. THOMAS, EDAMANASSERY, VALAKKATTU KUNNU, KONDADU, RAMAPURAM BAZAR. P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH, SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO MINISTRY FOR CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, KOTTAYAM-685 001. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL FOR SOCIETIES,O/O.REGISTRAR GENERAL, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, KOTTAYAM-685 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.32566 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that it is a Society, formed for the purpose of facilitating proper canalisation of water streams and water from the wells and ponds for irrigation of the farms. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P3, communication issued by the second respondent, they were asked to give membership to one P.A.Augustine in the society. On receipt of Ext.P3, petitioner replied stating that such admission cannot be granted as it will be against the byelaws of the Society. 2. Petitioner submits that subsequently by Ext.P5 they were called upon to file their returns and other documents and that in response, when by Ext.P6 they offered to the 3rd respondent to produce the documents that was not accepted. It is the case of the petitioner that after refusing to accept the documents offered to be produced, 3rd respondent issued Ext.P8 communication indicating that they have not produced their documents and that if documents are not produced , steps will be taken against the society. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the stand taken W.P (C) No.32566 of 2010 2 by the 3rd respondent as reflected in Ext.P8 is only to wreck vengeance on the Society for having denied admission to Sri.P.A Augustine mentioned in Ext.P3. In this writ petition, though the petitioner challenges Ext.P8, the counsel only requires that the 3rd respondent may be directed to accept the documents offered in Ext.P6 and pass orders in the matter. 4. If as stated by the petitioner in response to Ext.P5 issued by the 3rd respondent, they have offered to produce their documents, there is no reason why the same should not be accepted and further action taken on that basis. 5. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to produce their documents which they were called upon to produce by Exts.P5 and P8 in which event the same will be accepted by the 3rd respondent and necessary action will be taken on that basis. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent, for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma