IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11272 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ DITTO K.JOHN, SON OF ULAHANNAN, KALLOLIKAL, ALAKODE AMSOM, ARANGAM DESOM, UDAYAGIRI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT KANNUR. 2. THE UDAYAGIRI KSHEEROLPADAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.C.1561D, APCOS, UDAYAGIRI P.O., ALAKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. 3. THE PRESIDENT, THE UDAYAGIRI KSHEEROLPADAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.C 1561D, APCOS, UDAYAGIRI P.O.,ALAKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. RANI C. BENNY, SECRETARY, UDAYAGIRI KSHEEROLPADAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, UDAYAGIRI P.O.,ALAKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.G.P.SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.11272 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner approached this Court at an earlier point of time complaining that action was taken to expel him from the membership of the second respondent society without following due procedure. That led to Ext.P9 judgment being issued ensuring that the statutory formalities are followed and decision taken only in accordance with law. He now states that Ext.P12 has to be quashed. That is only a notice calling upon him to show cause and answer the allegations made against him as are stated in Ext.P12. The petitioner seeks support to his writ petition by relying on his own representation, Ext.P11, in which he has made certain allegations that the question of his expulsion was deliberated upon in the committee or the general body of the society even without WPC11272/2008 -:2:- including it in the agenda. No minutes are shown to have been drawn up. No decision is communicated to the petitioner expelling or discharging him . In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not deem it appropriate for this Court to interdict any proceedings that is generated as per Ext.P12. The next relief sought for is to consider Ext.P11 keeping Ext.P12 in abeyance. This also is not required because, going through Ext.P12, it cannot be assumed that the second respondent had already concluded against the petitioner on any question of expulsion. This writ petition is hence dismissed without prejudice to the allegations of the petitioner regarding the second respondent on grounds of mala fide, malice etc. sl. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, 4-4-2008. Judge.