IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 21518 of 2006(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.ASSANAR, HUSSAINIYA COTTAGE, KINAVALLUR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VINOD KUMAR.N.K., S/O.KUNJUNNI GUPTHAN, NELLIKUNNATHU VEEDU, EDAKKURISHI, KARIMPRA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. BOBY JACOB, ADVOCATE, FORMER PRESIDENT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD-1. 3. SANKARA NARAYANAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD-1. 4. PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. KERALA LOK AYUKTHA LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. R1 BY ADV.P.NARAYANAN R2 BY ADV. R.S.SARAT R3 BY ADV. TOM K.THOMAS R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.21518/06 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 31.3.2006 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.21518 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is the secretary of a co-operative society, the 4th respondent. The society invited applications for certain posts and made appointments. After that, the first respondent herein filed Ext.P1 complained before the Kerala Lok Ayuktha in relation to the selection and appointment. 2.The petitioner's grievance is that matters relating to selection, appointment etc. do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayuktha and still further, the Lok Ayuktha may not be within jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters relating to co-operative societies, more particularly, employment matters. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was only the secretary and hence, only one among the WPC.21518/06 2 signatories to the appointment orders and was not involved in the process of selection. 3. May be that the Lok Ayuktha does not have jurisdiction. It is a statutory body. Its jurisdiction is prescribed by the statute. But then, the Lok Ayuktha has not expressed itself on the issue of jurisdiction. It has not entertained any particular view against the writ petitioner. All that has been done is that it has fixed a date for hearing of the complaint. The Registrar of the Lok Ayuktha has issued a communication requiring appearance of parties. This does not mean that the Lok Ayuktha has a closed mind on the question of jurisdiction. 4.When the parties to a proceedings, which is notified to him, intend to challenge the jurisdiction, the authority which has initiated the proceedings can be told regarding the lack of WPC.21518/06 3 jurisdiction and that authority can be called upon to answer that issue. Every authority has the power to decide as to whether a matter falls within its jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner, faced with the situation, stated that the Lok Ayuktha has taken cognizance of the matter. It does not appear to be so, in the sense that it has not expressed itself that it has jurisdiction to decide the matter. Mere issuance of notice does not disable the parties to challenge jurisdiction of statutory authorities, particularly when the statutory authority would be well within its jurisdiction to decide on the question of jurisdiction, if raised. The question of judicial review of such a decision would be a different matter. The fact that a writ petition would lie against an order passed by a statutory authority like the Kerala Lok Ayuktha, as held by this Court in Kamalu v. State of Kerala [2006(3) KLT 227 (DB)] does not, by itself, mean that the parties cannot raise the WPC.21518/06 4 question of jurisdiction and ought to be permitted to agitate the question of jurisdiction straight away in a petition under Article 226. What was challenged in the case was an interim order passed by the Lok Ayuktha. In the case in hand, the proceedings before the Lok Ayuktha is still in a primitive stage. All that has been done is that the petitioner has been issued with a copy of the complaint filed before the Lok Ayuktha and a date has been fixed for appearance of parties, including with direction to file counter affidavit, if any, before that date. This obviously mean that the petitioner can agitate the question of maintainability and it would not be advisable in that context, for the writ court to exercise its jurisdiction to answer the question of maintainability of the matter before the Lok Ayuktha. In the aforesaid circumstances, preserving the right of the petitioner to move the Lok Ayuktha with his objections as to WPC.21518/06 5 jurisdiction and maintainability and to seek relief by way of adjudication of that issue, this writ petition is dismissed without entering on merits. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.16/04.