IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 36887 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF CHANDANAKKAMPARA, KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM, LTD., CHANDANAKKAMPARA, , KANNUR DIST, REP. BY THE PRESIDENT, ABRAHAM MARIPPURATH. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, KANNUR. ADDL.2. BENNY GEORGE PULIKUNNEL, PULIKUNNEL HOUSE, CHANDANAKKAMPARA, PAYYAVOOR VIA., KANNUR DISTRICT. (ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 18.3.09 ON I.A.628/09) R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC. PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.1361/08 DATED 25.7.08. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P(C).23401/08 DATED 5.8.08. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).23401/08 DATED 15.10.08. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.4267/08 DATED 12.11.08. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C.4267/08 DATED 29.11.08. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.36887 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, managing committee of a co-operative society, challenges Ext.P5 notice issued under Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. A perusal of the impugned notice discloses that specific grounds are stated therein for the proposed action. While refuting those allegations, the petitioner is right in stating that it could submit objections to that notice on merits. But, this writ petition is filed on the premise that the impugned Ext.P5 is nothing but one that germinated pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, whereby, an attempt to remove the committee from office on the ground of disqualification of some of its members and consequential fall in quorum was interfered with. The petitioner point out that following Ext.P3 judgment dated 15.10.2008, on 12.11.2008, an enquiry under Section 65 (1) was ordered and that the enquiry officer visited the office of the society on 14.11.2008, ultimately leading to the WPC.36887/08 Page numbers impugned notice dated 29.11.2008. The entire procedure is characterised as hasty. But the fact remains that the impugned notice, as already pointed out, discloses the ground of the proposed action. The issues relate to the continuance or removal of some of the employees, against whom, disciplinary proceedings were taken. There are other grounds also spelt out in Ext.P5. Interlinked with this issue is the question as to whether the erstwhile secretary, against whom disciplinary proceedings are going on, could be continued to be remained under suspension or whether the disciplinary proceedings against him could be completed. The petitioner states that the Deputy Director has refused to act on the request of the petitioner for permission to continue the said delinquent under suspension. 2. Having regard to the allegation that the impugned action is motivated and malafide and taking into consideration the plea regarding the requirement to continue the particular employee under suspension, this writ petition is ordered as follows: WPC.36887/08 Page numbers (i) The petitioner will be granted two weeks time from now to place its objections to Ext.P5 notice. (ii) The Deputy Director will consider the aforesaid objections in accordance with law and take a final decision on the matter in relation to which Ext.P5 has been issued. This shall be done after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and duly complying with the requirement of Section 32. (iii) Pending the aforesaid, the Deputy Director shall immediately communicate to the petitioner the decision regarding the request to continue Sri.Benny Lukose under suspension. If such request is not being acceded to, specific directions would be issued by the Deputy Director regarding finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. The procedure as aforesaid shall be carried out within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. WPC.36887/08 Page numbers (iv) Taking the entire facts and allegations into consideration, it is ordered that if any decision is issued adverse to the interest of the petitioner, that shall not be given effect to for a period of a fortnight of its communication to the petitioner. (v). The interim orders issued in this case, as they stand now, will continue to govern the parties till the Deputy Director issues a decision as aforesaid. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.19/3.