IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17021 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHERLY D'CRUZ, VALAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KEERIKADU SOUTH, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.JAYAN V.EAPEN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER'S FEDERATION LTD., GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS' FEDERATION LTD., GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 020. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS' FEDERATION LTD., ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, S.C, CONSUMER FED. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the action of the second and third respondents in issuing Ext.P3 proceedings. As per Ext.P3, the employees of the first respondent named therein have been made liable for the stock deficit that was detected. It is also stated therein that criminal proceedings would be initiated against the said persons, if the amounts demanded were not remitted. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings are absolutely without jurisdiction and the respondents are not conferred with any power to issue such proceedings. 2. Adv.M.Sasindran takes notice for all the respondents. He points out that what has been done as per Ext.P3 is only to direct the persons who were responsible for the deficit stock to make good the loss that was caused to the Society. It is also pointed out that if the petitioner has any grievance in the matter, the statutory remedy under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is available to her. 3. Since the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy wpc No.17021/2010 2 under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, I do not think it necessary to entertain this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge css/