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. 20774 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUTHALAMADA(EAST)KSHEERA VYAVASAYA CO.OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.P4(D), MEENKARA JUNCTION, GOVINDAPURAM PO, PALAKKAD DIST, REP.BY PRESIDENT P.MADHAVAN. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, PALAKKAD. 3. LALITHA RAMAKRISHNAN, CHAPPAKKAD, GOVINDAPURAM PO PALAKKAD DIST. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.7.2009, THE COURT ON ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.20774 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT In this writ petition the prayer sought for is to quash Ext.P3. There is a further prayer to declare that Ext.P3 order is not in consonance with the requirements of the law for the purpose of exercising powers under Section 101 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and therefore bad in law. 2. Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and having its area of operation spread over ward Nos.2 to 8 and 10 to 14 of the Muthalamada Grama Panchayat. It is stated that based on Ext.P4 made by the 2nd respondent and others, by Ext.P1 the petitioner was directed to amend the bye laws excluding ward No.11 from its area of operation. That was contested in Ext.P2 reply submitted by the petitioner and subsequently Ext.P3 order was issued by WP(c).No.20774/09 2 the first respondent exercising its powers under Section 101 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act exempting the proposed Chappakkad Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham in ward No.11 of Muthalamada Panchayat from the provisions of clause(c) of Sub Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. It is challenging Ext.P3 and with the prayers as stated aforesaid this writ petition is filed. 3. The question that arises for consideration is, whether by the incorporation of another society, within its area of operation, can the petitioner society be said to be legally aggrieved, to maintain a writ petition. A reading of the writ petition shows that by the incorporation of a new society, over the area of operation of the petitioner society is not affected nor is it affected in any other manner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner society is legally aggrieved to maintain a challenge against Ext.P3, which in effect permits incorporation of another society. WP(c).No.20774/09 3 4. This very issue came up for consideration of this court in Kunju Kunju, President, Alleppy Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. V. State of Kerala and Ors.(1971 KLT 350), where it is held that since no legal rights of the petitioner therein can be said to have been affected by the grant of registration to another society, there was no obligation to the State Government to give notice or offer a hearing. It has been stated thus in paragraph 3 as follows; “It may be that at the time when the petitioner society was registered it has framed its bye laws by including the Taluk of Shertallai also within the area of its operation since at that time there was no similar society functioning in Shertallai. Neither by reason of the inclusion of any particular locality as part of the area of operation of a society in the relevant clause in its bye-laws nor on account of the approval of such bye-law by the competent authority under the Act can it be said that a vested right of monopolistic banking activity has accrued to a particular society, so as to preclude the Registrar or the State Government from subsequently granting registration to another society to operate in any part of the said area. In my view, no legal right of the society can be said to have been affected by the grant of registration to another society to function in a locality which for the time being stands included within the area of operation of the former society. I find that I am WP(c).No.20774/09 4 supported in this view by the decision of Krishna Rao, J of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in The Bheeminipatnam Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. V. The government of Andhra Pradesh(1967) 1 An. WR. 244, which has been subsequently affirmed on appeal by a Division Bench of that High Court in The Vizianagaram Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. V. The Bheeminipatnam Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd.(1968) 1 An. WR. 52.” 5. Again in the judgment in Kasaragod Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank V. State of Kerala & Ors. (1976 KLT 437 it has been held as follows; The question arises in this case in regard to the affairs of the Kasaragod Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank, whose area of operation falls in part within the area of operation of the Hosdrug Taluk Land Mortgage Bank, which has been directed to be registered under S.7(1) of the Co- operative Societies Act. The contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is that the Registrar ( in this case, actually the action was taken by the Deputy Registrar) has not applied his mind to, or been satisfied about, the condition under S.7(1) (c) of the Act, namely, that the areas of the two Societies should not overlap before registration could be granted. For the one thing, we are not prepared to accept this on the averment of the petitioner, for another, assuming that this is so, and that he granted registration overlooking this requirement, it appears to us that a Society like the petitioner cannot have any legal grievance against the action which can be redressed under WP(c).No.20774/09 5 Article 226. To that effect is the recent decision of the Supreme Court in J.M. Desai V. Roshan Kumar(AIR 1976 SC 578) following the principle of the earlier decision in N.R. & F. Mills V. NTC and Bros.(AIR 1971 SC 246). To that effect was also the decision of Eradi J. in 1971 KLT 350 referred to earlier and noticed in my earlier judgment in O.P. Nos.1285 and 1488 of 1974. On this principle, we are of the opinion that the petitioner in this case cannot have any grievance. That is sufficient to dismiss this writ petition. “ In the light of the aforesaid two judgments, in my view, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not legally aggrieved. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.20774/09 6