IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26879 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JOHNSON M.D., MULAYAMKOTTIL, KARIKODE P.O.-686610, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SKARIA K.O., KAZHUNNUKANDAM, KARIKODE P.O. 686610, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. K.K.JOY, KUZHIKANDATHIL, KARIKODE P.O.- 686610, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. SREEDHARAN, PUTHENKULANGARAKUZHI, KRIKODE P.O.-686610, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. JOHNY A.V., ANAKUZHITHADAM, KRIKODE P.O.-686610, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. T.C.JOSE, THURUTHEL, KRIKODE P.O.-686610, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. JOY A.V., AMMAKKOOTTIL, KRIKODE P.O.-686610, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8. SHYNA PRAKASAN, CHEMBULLAKKIL, KRIKODE P.O.-686610, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686002. 2. THE DAIRY FARM INSTRUCTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT 'B' UNIT, KADUTHURUTHY-686604. 3. KARIKODE KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHOM LTD.NO.K77(D)APCOS,, KARIKODE P.O. 686610 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 26879/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF LETTER NO.D.98/2010 DATED 26.8.2010 WITH ENQUIRY REPORT ATTACHED THERETO EXT.P2 : COPY OF NOTICE NO.D98/2010 DATED 6.11.2010 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P3 : COPY OF REPLY LETTER DATED 22.11.2010 WITH COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.4 DATED 22.11.2010 SUBMITTED BY MANAGING COMMITTEE OF 3RD RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO.D/98/10 DATED 13.1.2011 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P5 : COPY OF ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 15.9.2011 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26879 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are members of the 3rd respondent co-operative society. They were elected to the managing committee of the said society in the elections held on 27.9.2009. It appears, while they were in office as members of the managing committee, steps were taken to supersede the committee under section 32 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and ultimately the managing committee of which the petitioners were members, was superseded by Ext.P4 order dated 13.1.2011. The Administrator appointed pursuant to the said order also took charge of the administration of the society. Long thereafter Ext.P5 election notification dated 15.9.2011 was issued proposing to hold the elections on 22.10.2011. This writ petition is filed contending that a copy of Ext.P4 order superseding the managing committee has not so far been served on the petitioners. 2. Under section 87 of the Act, the petitioners could have challenged Ext.P4 by filing a revision petition before the Government. The period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision petition is three months from the date on which the order sought to be revised was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioners have no case that WPC No.26879/2011 2 they were unaware of Ext.P4 order. Pursuant to Ext.P4 order dated 13.1.2011 they were removed from the managing committee of the third respondent society. The petitioners were thus aware as on 13.1.2011 when the part-time Administrator took charge they have ceased to be members of the managing committee. If they were aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, a copy of which they state was not served on them, they should have taken steps to obtain a copy of the order and thereafter filed a revision petition. In my opinion, at this distance of time, the petitioners who slept over their rights to challenge Ext.P4 cannot be heard to contend that the election notification issued eight months after the order of supersession was passed, is liable to be interfered with. I therefore find no reason to entertain the writ petition or to grant the reliefs prayed for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.26879/2011 3