IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 27058 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- IRINJALAKUDA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.594, IRINJALAKUDA.P.O, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA KERAKARSHAKA SAHAKARANA FEDERATION LIMITED NO.4370, ARISTO JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. R2 BY ADV. MR.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ,SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 27058/2009-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 27/04/2009 ISSUED B THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/2009. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.129/2005/AD DATED 03/09/2005. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.40/2007/AD DATED 22/03/2007. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.48/2007/AD DATED 02/04/2007. EXT.R2(e): COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.81/09/AD DATED 27/04/2009. EXT.R2(f): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.HO/OS/COPRA-PSS/2008-09 DATED 30/04/2009. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.27058 of 2009 ---------------------------- Dated 15th January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. This writ petition is filed challenging Clauses 8 and 10 of Ext.P1 circular issued by the second respondent. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to collect copra from farmers without insisting on production of a certificate from the Agricultural Officer and to make payment for the copra collected by way of cash cheques. 2. Clause 8 of Ext.P1 stipulates that in order to ensure that copra is supplied by an agriculturist, production of a certificate from the concerned Agriculture Officer should be produced. Clause 10 stipulates that payment for the copra collected shall be made only by account payee cheques or demand drafts. 3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein in paragraph 3 it is stated that the petitioner has not been selected by the committee constituted for procurement of copra in Thrissur District and therefore the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by Clauses 8 and 10 of Ext.P1. WP(C).No.27058/2009 2 4. Shorn of details, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner should be permitted to pay for the copra collected by way of cash cheques instead of account payee cheques/demand drafts. Clause 10 of Ext.P1 is in my opinion a provision intended to ensure that payment for the produce supplied reaches the farmer/agriculturist and not middlemen. The said provision is one conceived in the larger interests of producers of copra and cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. No procurer of copra can be heard to contend that they will not pay the price of copra supplied by cheques or demand drafts. Clause 10 does not stipulate that the payment should be made by demand draft. Payment can be made by account payee cheques also. Therefore, no inconvenience is caused to the person who makes payment by way of cheques. It will also ensure that the price paid for copra is received by the supplier and not by a third person. I therefore, find no merit in the challenge to Clause 10 of Ext.P1. 5. Clause 8 of Ext.P1 stipulates that in order to ensure that the person who supplies copra is an agriculturist/farmer, a certificate from the concerned Agricultural Officer should be produced. The said provision is also one intended to ensure that persons other than farmers/agriculturists do not procure copra elsewhere at a lower price WP(C).No.27058/2009 3 and supply it to procurer. The said stipulation is also one intended to ensure that middle men have no role to play in the supply of copra by farmers/agriculturists to agencies which procure copra. Therefore, Clause 8 of Ext.P1 cannot also be termed as arbitrary. That apart, production of a certificate from the concerned Agricultural Officer is to be done by the person who supplies copra and it is for that person to obtain such a certificate. The procurer of copra is not put to any inconvenience in the matter. Therefore, for that reason also I find no merit in the challenge to Clause 8 of Ext.P1. The second respondent has categorically averred that the petitioner is not a procurer of Thrissur District. Therefore, at least for the current season the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by any of the stipulations in Ext.P1. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS