IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 29 of 2010(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.RAMAKRISHNAPILLAI,RADHA NIVAS, KURUNGAPPALLY,VAVVAKAVU.PO,KOLLAM-690528. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,O/O.DEPUTY DIRECTOR,KOLLAM. 2. DIARY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,DIARY DEVELOPMENT UNIT,OACHIRA,KOLLAM. 3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.KSHEERA BHAVAN,PATTOM PALACE.PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. P.GOPALAKRISHNAN,VIJAYA BHAVANAM, KURUNGAPPALLY,VAVAKKAVU.PO,KOLLAM-690528. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R3 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R3 SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R4 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT. 24.2.2008 EXT.P2: -DO- OF THE APPLICATION DT. 28.2.2008 EXT.P3: -DO- OF THE LETTER DT. 15.10.2008 EXT.P4: -DO- OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH PROJECT REPORT, BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 14.11.2009 RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R1(1): -DO- OF THE CIRCULAR NO: 33448/D2/96/AD DT. 27.12.96 EXT.R1(2): -DO- OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED TO THE DAIRY EXTENSION OFFICER, OACHIRA DT. 15.10.2008 EXT.R1(3): -DO- OF THE INSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER ON 17.2.09 EXT.R1(4): -DO- OF THE LETTER NO: 90/08 OF THE DAIRY EXTENSION OFFICER, OACHIRA DT. 23.5.2009 EXT.R1(5): -DO- OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DT 22.12.2009 EXT.R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE FARMERS DT. 15/12/2006 EXT.R4(B): -DO- OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT AND 25 OTHERS DT. 2.7.2008 ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT DT. 4.7.2008 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EXT.R4(C): -DO- OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ON 14.5.09 EXT.R4(D): -DO- OF THE LETTER DT. 22.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, THIS RESPONDENT EXT.R4(E): -DO- OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 22.12.2009 jj /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 29 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a dairy farmer and a resident of Kurunagappally Ward (Ward No:7 of Kulashekarapuram Panchayat). Earlier, Ward No:7 of Kulashekarapuram Panchayat fell within the area of operation of Kadathoor Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham No:Q 167(D) APCOS. Since the office as well as the collection centre of such society was situate far away, the dairy farmers of the petitioner's ward found it very difficult to sell their milk and dairy products to the existing society. Therefore, the society itself amended its bye laws deleting ward No:7 from its area of operation. 2. After deletion of Ward No:7 from the area of operation of the existing society, the petitioner along with other 24 dairy farmers in ward No:7 submitted an application for the registration of a new dairy co-operative society with Kurunagappally as its area of operation. The first respondent issued a letter permitting the petitioner to convene a meeting for the formation of a new dairy society as proposed by him. The said communication is Ext.P3. Pursuant to Ext.P3 the petitioner had approached the respondents WPC 29/2010 2 requesting for the convening of a meeting of the persons who were willing to join the new co-operative society. But, nothing was done. In the above circumstances the petitioner has come to know that another application for the registration of a new dairy society with Kurunagappally area itself as the area of operation was under consideration. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in proceeding with the registration of a new society in the area of operation to which the petitioner had submitted an earlier application. 3. This writ petition was admitted on 5.1.2010 and an interim order of stay of further proceedings for registration of the new society proposed by the fourth respondent was also granted. 4. On receipt of notice, the fourth respondent appeared through counsel. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent as well as the first respondent. I have heard Mr. V.G.Arun for the petitioner, Smt. P.A. Anitha for the fourth respondent and the learned Senior Govt. Pleader for the first respondent. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously. 5. According to the respondents a new society by name Kurunagappally Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham No:Q.342(D) APCOS has been registered on 22.12.2009. The registration WPC 29/2010 3 certificate is produced as Exts.R4(e) by the fourth respondent and as R1(5) by the first respondent. The Registration Certificate shows that the said society had been registered even before the filing of this writ petition. However, it is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that since the process of registering a society as proposed by him was in progress, the authorities had a duty to at least hear him before permitting the registration of a new society with the very same area of operation. The learned Senior Government Pleader as well as the counsel for the fourth respondent meets this contention by pointing out that though the petitioner had been granted permission to convene a meeting of the persons who were desirous of becoming members of the society proposed by him, he did not convene such a meeting and therefore, when the application submitted by the fourth respondent was received, the same was processed and a new society was permitted to be registered. He submitted that there is no irregularity in the procedure that was adopted. 6. In view of the fact that a society has already been registered as evidenced by the registration certificate well before even the filing of this writ petition the substantial reliefs that are prayed for in this writ petition have become infructuous. It is WPC 29/2010 4 submitted that the new society has not started functioning for the only reason that the interim order granted by this Court prevented it from functioning. Therefore, there is no justification for continuing the interim order any longer. In view of the above, it is made clear that the society that has been registered as per Exts.R4 (e) and R1(5) registration certificate is free to start functioning. 7. At the same time, I notice that the petitioner had been granted permission to convene a meeting of the persons who were desirous of becoming members of the proposed society, but that no further action has been taken in the matter thereafter. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit of the first respondent that it is because the petitioner had not convened the meeting that he had been directed to convene, it is not in dispute that no proceedings have been issued rejecting his proposal also. Therefore, the proposal that was submitted by the petitioner supported by a project report and other documents necessarily has to be processed further in the light of the subsequent developments including the registration of the new society. If necessary, the petitioner can submit suitable modifications to his proposal. If he does so, the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and shall take necessary action in the matter as expeditiously as WPC 29/2010 5 possible and at any rate within a period of two months. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 29/2010 6