IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 8168 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ARUNODAYA KSHEERA VYAVASAYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.4118, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP.BY AGRICULTURAL (DAIRY) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, DAIRTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,(DAIRY), DISTRICT OFFICE, PATTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PUTHICHAL SHEEROLPADAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,ANTHIYOOR,BALARAMAPURAM P.O, TRIVANDRUM,REP.BY PRESIDENT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.8168/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE BY LAW. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 26.7.08 ISSUED by the SECRETARY OF THE BALARAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DT 25.2.2003. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT 9.1.2004 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED BYE LAW OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DT 25.4.08 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 4.7.08 IN WPC 14711/08. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 16.7.08. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED ON 31.7.08. EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST. EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 4.8.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.24275/08 DT 12.8.2008. EXT.P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DT 14.8.2008. EXT.P14: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 26.2.09 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8168 OF 2009 (M) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a milk society registered on 1/6/1957 and a reading of Exts.P1 to P3 show that its area of operation is spread over Ward Nos.8 and 9 of Balaramapuram Grama Panchayath. 2. In this writ petition, what is under challenge is the registration that was granted to the 4th respondent, a new society, the bye law of which is Ext.P5 and the certificate of registration is Ext.P6. Petitioner challenged the registration on the ground of overlapping and that was confirmed in Ext.P11 order. When that order was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.24275/08, the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P12 judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue his grievance before the appellate authority. Accordingly, Ext.P13 appeal was filed, which was rejected as per Ext.P14. It its in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. Admittedly, the area of operation of the new society is in the 9th ward of Balaramapuram Grama Panchayath and to that extent there is overlapping of the area of operation, against Section 7(1)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. But the WPC 8168/09 :2 : question would arise, whether, by the grant of registration to a new society within the area of its operation, can the petitioner be said to be legally aggrieved to maintain a challenge against the same in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In my view, the answer has to be in the negative in the light of the judgment of this Court in Kasargod Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank v. State of Kerala (1976 KLT 437), which states that, assuming that there is overlapping of areas of the two societies and that the Registrar granted registration overlooking the requirement in Section 7(1)(c) of the Act, existing society cannot have any legal grievance against the action which can be redressed in a proceedings under Article 226. This judgment has been rendered following an earlier judgment in Kunju Kunju v. State of Kerala (1971 KLT 350). In the light of the aforesaid judgments, I find no merit in this writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp