IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 7361 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.P.GOPALAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, VALIYAPARAMBATH, P.O.VYKKILASSERY, VATTAKKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MAYYANNUER WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE P & S SOCIETY LTD.NO.F 1318, P.O.VILLYAPPALLY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ARBITRATOR, SENIOR INSPECTOR, HANDLOOM ORGANIZATION, CALICUT. 4. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.7361 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was the Secretary of the first respondent Society. Rebate sale was conducted during the period from 28.7.1996 to 30.8.1996. Thereafter the Society claimed reimbursement of Rs.1,66,972.95 from the Government and that was turned down. This was treated as a loss to the Society and finally, in ARC.No.1/2002 filed, Ext.P2 award was passed, directing that the petitioner who was held responsible for the loss, shall pay the aforesaid amount to the Society with interest and arbitration fee. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 revision petition No.17/06 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by Ext.P4 order rejected the revision. It is in this background the writ petition is filed. 2. As already noticed, the petitioner was the Secretary of the society, during the period the rebate sale was WP(c).No.7361/09 2 conducted. It is also the fact that the Government declined to reimburse the amount claimed and in the process the society suffered a loss of Rs.1,66,972.95. The claim was rejected, as can be seen from Exts.P2 and P4, for the reason that proper accounts were not maintained. Petitioner submits that the conclusion regarding the propriety of the account was on the basis of an inspection report which was prepared based on the inspection conducted on 30.8.1996, when he was on leave. According to him, it was without verifying the accounts that the report was submitted and hence, the findings based on the report is wrong. 3. I am not in a position to accept the contention that the petitioner should be exonerated of his liability for the only reason of his absence on 30.8.1996. If according to the petitioner, the accounts were properly maintained and inspection report is erroneous, it was for the petitioner to get the accounts summoned either at the stage when the ARC was adjudicated or when the revision was considered. That was WP(c).No.7361/09 3 not done. If that be so, the petitioner cannot now contend that the accounts were properly maintained and are available with the Society. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the contention raised. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.7361/09 4