IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 463 of 2009 -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17717/2008 Dated 01/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------- M.B. SATHYAN, MAVUNIKKUNNATHIL, ELANTHOOR EAST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRTARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL CO-OP MILK PRODUCES UNION LTD., KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 4. L. RAJENDRAN, PRESIDENT, KAPPIKKADU, KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGAM, KAPPIKKADU POOVACHL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT R. BINDU R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE & ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.463 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 6th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He is the President of Varyapuram Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam, Elanthoor P.O., Pathanamthitta. He was an elected member of the 3rd respondent Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union. As per the bye-laws of the Union, a candidate representing a Primary Society should have poured such quantity of milk as may be fixed by resolution by the 3rd respondent. In this case, the quantity was fixed as per Annexure-A resolution. The society should have poured 200 litres per day during the preceding financial year with reference to the year in which the election is held. The appellant was qualified as per the said resolution and, therefore, his nomination was accepted. He was successful in the election held and became the member of the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent. While so, the quantity of milk poured went down and, therefore, the petitioner suffered W.A. No.463/09 - 2 - disqualification. As per the bye-laws 19 and 20 of the bye-laws of the 3rd respondent society, the qualification prescribed as per Annexure-A resolution should continue throughout the tenure of the term of the Committee. When the quantity of milk poured by the appellant's society went below the quantity prescribed by Annexure-A resolution, the 4th respondent filed a complaint against the appellant, which resulted in the passing of Ext.P4 order disqualifying him. The said order was quashed by this Court by Ext.P5 judgment, giving liberty to the second respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter. The matter was again heard and by Ext.P6 order dated 1.3.2007, the appellant was again disqualified. He filed an appeal before the Government. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P9 order. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P6 and P9 orders. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence, this appeal. 2. Going by the judgment under appeal, we find nothing wrong in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. W.A. No.463/09 - 3 - But, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the bye-laws of the third respondent, the appellant's Society need pour milk only for 270 days. If milk is not poured for 90 days, the same can be condoned. If Ext.P1 is interpreted in that way, the appellant's Society should pour at least 200 litres of milk per day for 270 days. Then, there is required quantity of milk. But, if the resolution is taken as the liability to pour 200 litres of milk for 365 days, then there is deficiency. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the first view mentioned above is the correct view, in terms of the provisions of the bye-laws. But, we notice that such a contention was not raised before the statutory authorities or in the writ petition, or at the time of hearing the matter before the learned Single Judge. So, we cannot find fault with the judgment of the learned Single Judge for not considering a point not raised or argued. The contention mainly urged before the learned Single Judge was that the qualification prescribed as per Annexure-A was only for being elected and for the rest of the term even if there is deficiency in the W.A. No.463/09 - 4 - quantity of milk poured, the same will not attract disqualification. The said contention was overruled by the learned Single Judge. We would say, the same was rightly done. Clause 19.5 of the bye-laws expressly provides that during the tenure of an elected member, the said member's Society has to satisfy the conditions contained in clause 20 of the bye-laws, which includes the liability to pour milk as fixed in the resolution of the managing committee. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK. ` (True copy)