High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-06-19Writ petition disposed. The proceedings under E...

Geetha Ragavan v. Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 17582 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Gopinath P.
Judgment Date: 2023-06-19
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Ext. P15 will be adjudicated in accordance with the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The petitioner shall be provided copies of documents on request and may examine records only in the presence of the Society's Secretary and President. The petitioner will have an opportunity to raise contentions before the Arbitrator. A writ under Article 226 cannot be used to set aside an application under Section 69.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed. The proceedings under Ext. P15 under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 will be adjudicated by the competent authority/arbitrator. Copies of documents to be provided on request; examination of records to occur in the presence of the Society's Secretary and President. The petitioner may raise contentions before the Arbitrator; if Ext. P15 is not maintainable, such a plea can be urged before the Arbitrator. The writ remedy under Article 226 is not available to challenge a Section 69 application.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Geetha Ragavan

Respondents

Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.
President, Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.
Secretary, Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.
Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (General)
Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies (General) and Arbitrator
Sheela Devi I President, Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.
Rajeev K. K., Secretary, Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.
Nazeeba O. H., Director, Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.
Harish K. P., Director, Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.
Sreevalsan V., Director, Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.
Thankachan N. K., Director, Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.
Rajani K. N., Director, Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.
Divya C. Balan, Director, Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd.
Bimal K. Nath, Advocate

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• AADITHYAN S. MANNALI
• SAJAN MANNALI

Counsels for Respondents

• P. N. Mohanan
• Reshmi Thomas (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Geetha Ragavan, a retired attender of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd., approached this Court seeking to challenge Exts. P5, P6 and P15 and to quash the corresponding proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. She claimed the claim against her is not maintainable and that a writ petition is not the proper remedy to interfere with a Section 69 recovery action. The respondent Society opposed quashing Ext. P15, arguing that it is a statutory application under Section 69 which must be adjudicated by the competent authority or Arbitrator, and cannot be nullified by a writ petition. The Court cited Michael Vetha Siromani IAS v. State of Kerala (ILR 2022 (3) Kerala 250) to emphasize that a Section 69 application cannot be quashed through writ proceedings. The petitioner sought disposal of Ext. P15 within a time frame and production of necessary documents to defend before the Arbitrator. The respondents offered to provide documents on request, and the Court directed that copies be supplied and that examination of records, if any, be done only in the presence of the Society's Secretary and President. The writ petition is disposed accordingly, with a direction that the petitioner may raise contentions before the Arbitrator, and if Ext. P15 is not maintainable, that plea may be urged before the Arbitrator.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969Rules framed thereunderArticle 226 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that Ext. P15 is an application under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and thus not amenable to quashing by a writ. They contended that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot challenge a statutory recovery proceeding under Section 69 and that the court should not interfere with the proceeding. They sought to call for records (Exhibits P5, P6, P15) and to have Ext. P15 disposed of within a time frame. They requested production of documents to enable a proper defence and asserted that examination of records should occur only in the presence of the Society's Secretary and President. They urged that any contentions be raised before the Arbitrator, and if Ext. P15 is not maintainable, such a plea should be considered before the Arbitrator. They relied on Michael Vetha Siromani IAS v. State of Kerala to support the proposition that writs cannot quash a Section 69 application.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that Ext. P15 is a statutory application under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and must be adjudicated by the competent authority/arbitrator in accordance with law. They submitted that a writ petition cannot quash the 69 proceedings and that the petitioner should raise all contentions before the Arbitrator. They indicated willingness to provide copies of documents on request and asserted that examination of records should be conducted in the presence of the Society's Secretary and President to ensure proper procedure. They urged the Court to refrain from interfering with the Section 69 process and to dispose of the petition in a manner consistent with the statutory remedy.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Michael Vetha Siromani IAS v. State of Kerala	ILR 2022 (3) Kerala 250	Positive	Division Bench held that an application under Section 69 cannot be quashed in writ proceedings.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Geetha Ragavan v. Kerala High Court Advocates' Cooperative Society Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 17582 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` GEETHA RAGHAVAN AGED 58 YEARS W/O. RAGHAVAN, ATTENDER ( RETD.), KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM 682036, NOW RESIDING AT AMBATT HOUSE, EDACHIRA, THENGODE PO, PIN - 682030 BY ADVS. AADITHYAN S.MANNALI SAJAN MANNALI ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT ROAD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM 682031. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 682031` - `2 PRESIDENT, KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` - `3 SECRETARY KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` - `4 JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL), KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682030` - `5 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) AND ARBITRATOR, SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, CHITOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM.682016., PIN - 682016` - `6 SHEELA DEVI I PRESIDENT, KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT ROAD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` - `7 RAJEEV K. K., SECRETARY, KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT ROAD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` - `8 NAZEEBA O. H. DIRECTOR, KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT ROAD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` WPC No.17582 of 2023 2 ``` 9HARISH K. P. DIRECTOR, KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT ROAD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 10SREEVALSAN V. DIRECTOR, KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT ROAD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 11THANKACHAN N. K. DIRECTOR, KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT ROAD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 12RAJANI K. N. DIRECTOR, KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT ROAD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 13DIVYA C. BALAN, DIRECTOR, KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT ROAD., HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM 682031., PIN - 682031 14BIMAL K. NATH ADVOCATE, 631 K. H. C. A. A. CHAMBER COMPLEX, HIGH COURT ROAD, HIGH COURT P.O. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV P.N.MOHANAN ``` ``` P.N.MOHANAN [R1] RESHMI THOMAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC No.17582 of 2023 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, a former employee of the first respondent society, who retired from service on 31.08.2022, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) to call for the records relating to Exhibits P5, P6 and P15 and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order; ii) to issue such other writ direction or order as this Honourable Court deems just and proper on the facts of the case; And iii) to award cost. 2. Ext.P15 is a claim filed against the petitioner by the first respondent society under the provisions of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 read along with the Rules framed thereunder. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the claim now filed against the petitioner is not maintainable. 3. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent society, the question of interfering with a claim filed in terms of provisions contained WPC No.17582 of 2023 4 in Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 does not arise for a consideration in a writ petition. It has been categorically held by a Division Bench of this Court in **Michael Vetha Siromani IAS v. State of Kerala** [I.L.R. 2022 (3) Kerala 250] that an application filed under Section 69 before the competent authority for recovery of money cannot be quashed in writ proceedings. 4. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P15 may be directed to be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. He further submits that the first respondent society may be directed to provide necessary documents to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to defend the proceedings before the Arbitrator. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has no objection in such a direction being issued. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent society, I am of the view that the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner cannot be granted. Ext.P15 WPC No.17582 of 2023 5 is an application filed by the first respondent under the provisions of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The said application has to be adjudicated in accordance with the law. The petitioner will be given an opportunity to raise all contentions before the Arbitrator and if the petitioner is of the view that Ext.P15 is not maintainable, it is for the petitioner to take up such a plea before the Arbitrator. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable seeking to set aside an application filed by the first respondent under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. 7. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not being provided the copies of documents requested for and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent that necessary documents will be provided to the petitioner on request, it is directed that, if the petitioner makes any application for copies of any documents, the first respondent shall provide such documents to the petitioner. It is made clear that, if the petitioner wishes to examine any of WPC No.17582 of 2023 6 the records of the first respondent society, the same shall be done only in the presence of the Secretary and President of the Society. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- **GOPINATH P., JUDGE** rkj WPC No.17582 of 2023 7 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17582/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAWS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SOCIETY. Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.01.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2(a)TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. KHACS/G/2019- DATED 23.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3(a)TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3 Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.10.2021, TO EXT. P3. Exhibit P4(a)TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF EXT P4. Exhibit P4(b)TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.08.2022, SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.08.2022, SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. GB/2022/1/ADT, DATED 25.08.2022. Exhibit P5(a)TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF EXT P5 Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. GB/2022/2/ADT, DATED 25.08.2022. Exhibit P6(a)TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF EXT P6. Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER, DATED 05.09 2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7(a)TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7. Exhibit1 P8TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.09 2022. Exhibit P8(a)TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P8. Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE 'LIABILITY CERTIFICATE', DATED 31.08.2022, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3. Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.09.2022. ``` WPC No.17582 of 2023 8 |`Exhibit P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.09.2022`| |---|---| ||`ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE`| ||`PETITIONER.`| |`Exhibit P11(a)`|`TRUE COPY TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P11.`| |`Exhibit P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER, DATED 22.09.2022`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE`| ||`PETITIONER.`| |`Exhibit P12(a)`|`TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P12.`| |`Exhibit P13`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`| ||`10.11.2022 IN WPC NO. 34392 OF 2022.`| |`Exhibit P14`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE NOTICE NO. ARC`| ||`2226/2022 DATED 6.3.2023 ISSUED BY THE`| ||`5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`| |`Exhibit P15`|`TRUE COPY OF ARC NO 2226 OF 2022.`| |`Exhibit P16`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRIES IN THE AUDIT`| ||`MEMORANDUM 2020-2021 DEALING WITH`| ||`'ADVANCES'- AMOUNTS DUE TO THE SOCIETY.`| |`Exhibit P17`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRIES IN THE AUDIT`| ||`MEMORANDUM 2020-2021 DEALING WITH`| ||`'ADVANCES'- AMOUNTS DUE TO THE SOCIETY.`|