IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 3589 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.SURENDRAN, BRANCH MANAGER, (UNDER ORDERS OF DISMISSAL), CHEMMARUTHY SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.NO.T 328, PANAYARA P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT G.S.LAND, PRAYALAGIRI, THOKKODU P.O. VADASSERIKONAM, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CHEMMARUTHY SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD NO.T 328, PANAYARA P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR) FOR R1 SPL.GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.A.G.ANEETHA FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.3589/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND O.P.TICKERT ISSUED FROM CHEMMARUTHY PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER. EX.P2:COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DT.25.6.2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.20799/2008 DT.20.8.2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT.18.1.2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT.6.11.2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DT.24.11.2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.25.11.2008. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT.30.11.2008. EXT.P9: COP OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COMMITTEE DT.15.12.2008. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY the PETITIONER DT.12.12.2008. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COMMITTEE DT.26.12.2008. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.6.1.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.36822/2008. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DT.20.1.2009. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL COMMITTEE EXT.P15: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPEAL COMMITTEE DT.24.1.2009 EXT.P16: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.23.5.2008 IN ARC NO.109/2007. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DT.2.3.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE BANK. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.17.1.2009. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.17.1.2009. EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.21.1.2009. EXT.R1(e): COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF R1(d) K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 3589 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner, who was an employee of the 1st respondent bank, was dismissed from service by Ext.P11 order of the Sub Committee constituted for that purpose under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner appealed. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by Ext.P15 order. The Appellate Committee lacked quorum in the light of Section 28(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, according to the writ petitioner. Further, instead of the Managing Committee acting as the appellate forum, the society decided to constitute a separate Appellate Committee as evident from Ext.P13, copy of the resolution of the Managing Committee. As per the decision of this Court in Kunjahammed v. Joint Registrar [1998(1)KLT 60], the members of the Sub Committee should not participate in the Managing Committee, which hears an appeal of an employee filed under sub rule 4 of Rule 198. In the case on hand, two members W.P.(C).No3589/2009 2 constituted the Sub Committee. Total strength of the Managing Committee is 9. According to the Society, one of the members ceased to be a member, owing to the continued absence. So, the present strength of the Managing Committee is only 8. Even if the two members of the Sub Committee are avoided, the remaining six members can constitute quorum, whether the strength of the Managing Committee is 8 or 9. 2. Going by the decision of this Court in Narayanan v. Narikkuni Service Co-operative Bank [2002(2) KLT 216], the quorum has to be decided with reference to the strength of the Committee and not with reference to the members actually present. This is a well settled position, with which, no one can have any quarrel. But, in view of Kunhammed's case (supra), if the members of the Sub Committee are excluded, there may be a case where the remaining members cannot constitute quorum for the Managing Committee. In such a case, there may be difficulty in implementing the decision in Kunhammed's case strictly. W.P.(C).No3589/2009 3 3. To find solution to the above legal conundrum, this writ petition was referred to the Division Bench. But, we notice that on the facts of this case, the said legal question does not arise in this case. Even if, the Sub Committee members are excluded, the remaining members can constitute quorum, even if the strength of the Committee is taken as 8 or 9. No Court will decide a hypothetical question. In other words, a question of law will be decided, only, if it is absolutely necessary for the disposal of the case at hand. Since such a question of law does not arise in this case, the reference of the writ petition to the Division Bench was unnecessary. 4. But, we are distressed to find that the orders of the Co-operative Societies are directly challenged before this Court and they are entertained by this Court. In that process, this Court's precious time, which should be preserved for dealing with matters, which this Court alone can handle, is being wasted. The same is against public interest. We may not be understood as saying that, this Court may not entertain a writ petition, when there is an alternative remedy. But, in this case, we find that there is a hierarchy of authorities, who are competent to decide W.P.(C).No3589/2009 4 on the validity of the resolutions of the Managing Committee of the Society. So, it is absolutely unnecessary for the petitioner to approach this Court and for this Court to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of both sides and the right of the writ petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies available to him. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps