IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 18885 of 2006(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.K.JOSE,AGED 67, JALIYATH HOUSE, THABORE P.O., POTHEMKUTTY, ERNAKULAM- 683 577. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN, SMT.ROSAMMA JOSEPH, SRI.BIJU.P.N. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CO-OPERATIVE DEAPRTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU. 3. THE SECRETARY, (APCOS) MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THABORE P.O., POTHEMKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN, ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN, ADV. SMT.REKHA C.NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.18885/2006-W: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE G.O. (P). NO. 9/06/AGRL. DEPARTMENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 10/03/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. C-872/06 DTD 23/05/2006. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/06/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.18885 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, he is a member of the third respondent society and had been bringing in milk into that society for more than 14 years. But, learned counsel for the third respondent submits that for the last two years, the petitioner had not been carrying on that activity. However, a close reading of Rule 29 of Ext.P2 Rules governing the scheme of pension appears to suggest that petitioner's claim requires a proper look with reference to the details that may be furnished by the third respondent regarding the participation of the petitioner in the society. While the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent proceeds on the basis that the petitioner is eligible for pension, the stand taken is that the third respondent has not given membership to the petitioner. There is still controversy regarding that also. Under such circumstances, the second respondent Deputy Director is directed to take a decision de novo, after hearing the petitioner and the third WPC.18885/06 Page numbers respondent, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties are directed to appear before the second respondent on 20.2.2008 and place the relevant materials. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.