IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 W.A.No. 1751 of 2009() AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.13766/2009 Dated 16/07/2009 APPELLANT: 5TH RESPONDENT IN WPC K.J.GEORGE, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 57 YEARS, KUDILIL HOUSE, CHETTIKKAD P.O., PALLIKKUNNU, KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & R1 TO R4 IN WP 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE KUMARAMPUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO.P 373, MANNARKKAD COLLEGE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.KESAVAN, KAMBAMKOTTIL HOUSE, NO.3/152, PAYYANNEDAM P.O., 678 583, PAYYANEDAM DESOM, PAYYANEDAM VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 5. V.DEEPAK, S/O.V.P.RAVEENDRANATHAN, 'SRUTHI', VIJAYAKKURISSI POST, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU-R1,R2 SRI.ASHISH K.JOHN-R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1751 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 5th respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The 5th respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The appellant availed of a loan from the third respondent-Bank. Since he defaulted payment, the Bank moved the Arbitrator by filing A.R.C. No.104 of 2004. In execution of the award passed in the said Arbitration Case, the property of the appellant was brought to sale. The 5th respondent herein was the auction purchaser. The Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, as per Ext.P1 proceedings dated 2.8.2008, confirmed the sale in favour of the 5th respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a statutory appeal before the Government under Rule 83(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as W.A.NO. 1751/2009 2 “the Rules”). The said appeal was allowed by the Government as per Ext.P5 order dated 10.2.2009. The 5th respondent herein challenged that order before this Court, contending, inter alia, that the said order has been passed without hearing him and, therefore, it is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge upheld that contention, allowed the Writ Petition and quashed Ext.P5 order. The matter was remanded to the Government for fresh hearing, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the 5th respondent also. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Rule 83 of the Rules, with special emphasis to sub-rule(6) thereof and submitted that in the light of the said rule, the 5th respondent has no right to be heard. We heard the learned counsel for the 5th respondent also. He supported the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. We notice that Ext.P5 order has been quashed only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The only point to be considered is whether the said order has affected any legal rights or legally protected interest of the 5th respondent. If the answer is in the negative, it is not necessary to hear him. But, we notice that the 5th respondent herein W.A.NO. 1751/2009 3 is the auction purchaser of the property. That being so, Ext.P5 order will definitely affect his rights. The Government should have heard him before passing final orders in the matter. So, Ext.P5 has been held by the learned Single Judge to be vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. The contention raised by the appellant relying on Rule 83(6) of the Rules is plainly untenable. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, but without prejudice to the contentions of both sides regarding the merits of their case, which they can urge before the Government when it rehears the matter. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A.NO. 1751/2009 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.1751/2009 JUDGMENT 7th August, 2009 W.A.NO. 1751/2009 5