High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2011-11-21Writ petition dismissed; permits challenge to a...

Paul Thomas v. State of Kerala and Other Respondents

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 30945 of 2011 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. N. Ravindran
Judgment Date: 2011-11-21
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is not foreclosed from challenging Exts. P6 to P6(c) awards either by filing an appeal or by filing a revision before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. He may also pursue the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission for expeditious disposal of any pending debt relief application.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; permits challenge to awards by appeal, revision, or debt relief proceedings; no relief granted to intervene in the merits of the awards in this writ petition.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Paul Thomas

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Department of Co-operation, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-1
Registrar, Co-operate Societies, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Assistant Registrar (General) Co-operative Societies, Muvattupuzha-686661
Inspector/Special Sale Officer, Kooothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Group, Office of the Assistant Registrar (General) Co-operative Societies, Muvattupuzha-686661
Enanalloor Service Co-Operative Bank, No.1447, Enanalloor P.O., Muvattupuzha-686661
Kharsheka Kadaswasa Commission, represented by the Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram-695029

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C. P. Saji
• Sri. P. J. Balachandran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri G. Gopakumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges four awards (Exts. P6, P6(a), P6(b) and P6(c)) passed by the Inspector/Special Sales Officer under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The petitioner, Paul Thomas, contends that the copies of these awards were communicated to him only on 5 October 2011, long after the awards were passed, and that the awards were not delivered in his presence. He invokes Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which provides for an appeal to the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal and prescribes a 60-day period for filing from the date of passing of the award. Citing precedents from Lalithamma, Thankappan and C.K. Damodaran, the petitioner argues that the limitation should run from the date of knowledge of the award, and that the time spent obtaining certified copies should be excluded. He also argues for an alternative route via a revision petition before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, and references his pending application before the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission. The respondents’ arguments are not detailed in the excerpt. The court, however, relies on the above authorities to hold that the period of limitation can commence from the knowledge date and notes available alternate remedies. The petition is ultimately dismissed, but without prejudice to challenging the awards through appeal, revision, or debt relief proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969Rule 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Limitation for filing an appeal under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act starts from the date of knowledge of passing of the award when the award was not delivered in the presence of the party.
Time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the award may be excluded in computing the period of limitation.
Alternate remedy doctrine -revision petition before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal is available as an alternate remedy when an appeal is not entertained.
Sarbani Amma style principle – revisional jurisdiction within a particular time frame (five months from the date of award) as an implied limitation for exercising revisional jurisdiction.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that the four awards passed by the Inspector/Special Sale Officer were not delivered in his presence and that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 should start from the date he obtains knowledge of the award (5 October 2011). He asserts that according to Lalithamma, Thankappan and C.K. Damodaran, the period can be computed from knowledge of passing, with exclusion for the time taken to obtain a certified copy. He maintains that if the appeal period has expired, he can challenge by a revision before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, and if debt relief applications are pending before the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission, those should be expedited. He seeks relief to challenge the awards in appeal or revision or through debt relief processes.

Contentions of Respondents

Not expressly set out in the provided document. The judgment indicates the court considered the petition challenging the awards and recognized available remedies (appeal, revision, or debt relief) but does not provide a detailed account of the respondents’ arguments in the excerpt.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Lalithamma v. M.S.Co-operative Society	1979 KLT 884	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that when an award is not delivered in the presence of the party, the limitation period starts from the date of knowledge of passing the award, and time for obtaining a certified copy should be excluded.
Thankappan v. M.T.M.V. Co-operative Society	1979 KLT 668	Positive	Cited for the same principle regarding commencement of limitation from knowledge of passing and exclusion for obtaining copies.
C.K. Damodaran v. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal	1980 KLT 520	Positive	Cited to support the rule that limitation begins from knowledge of passing, with exclusion for time to obtain certified copy.
Sarojini Amma v. Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd.	2005 (3) KLT 655	Positive	Cited to justify invoking revisional jurisdiction within five months where an appeal period may have expired; supports alternate remedy within a defined time frame.

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 Paul Thomas v. State of Kerala and Other Respondents 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 P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30945 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): - --------------- PAUL THOMAS, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, AYYANKOLIL HOUSE, ENANALLOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SAJI SRI.P.J.BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): - --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MUVATTUPUZH-686 661. 4. INSPECTOR/SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, KOOOTHATTUKULAM FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK GROUP, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO-OPEPRATIVE SOCIETIES, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 5. ENANALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NO.1447, ENANALLOOUR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA-686661. 6. KHARSHAKA KADASWASA COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 029. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.30945/2011 APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS |EXT.P1|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 6TH| |---|---| ||RESPONDENT DATED 03.04.2010 TO THE PETITIONER.| |EXT.P2|TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 15.5.2011 FILED BY| ||THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS ARC NO.605/2011.| |EXT.P2(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 15.5.2011 FILED BY THE 5TH| ||RESPONDENT AS ARC NO.606/2011.| |EXT.P2(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 15.5.2011 FILED BY THE 5TH| ||RESPONDENT AS ARC NO.607/2011.| |EXT.P2(c)|TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 15.5.2011 FILED BY THE 5TH| ||RESPONDENT AS ARC NO.608/2011.| |EXT.P3|TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.| |EXT.P4|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.7.2011| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN ARC NO.605/2011| ||BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |EXT.P5|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.7.2011| ||SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE| ||PETITIONER.| |EXT.P6|TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE INSPECTOR,| ||SPECIAL SALE OFFICER OF THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT IN ARC NO.605/2011 DATED 28.7.2011.| |EXT.P6(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE INSPECTOR,| ||SPECIAL SALE OFFICER OF THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT IN ARC NO.606/2011 DATED 28.7.2011.| |EXT.P6(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE INSPECTOR,| ||SPECIAL SALE OFFICER OF THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT IN ARC NO.607/2011 DATED 28.7.2011.| |EXT.P6(c)|TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE INSPECTOR,| ||SPECIAL SALE OFFICER OF THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT IN ARC NO.608/2011 DATED 28.7.2011.| RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL vps /True Copy/ PA to Judge ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J.** ## **--------------------------W.P.(C) No. 30945 OF 2011 -------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of November, 2011** ## **J U D G M E N T** Exts.P6, P6(a), P6(b) and P6(c) awards passed by the fourth respondent Arbitrator on 28.7.2011 are under challenge in this writ petition. Apart from various contentions touching upon the merits of the award, it is also contended that copies of the awards were communicated to the petitioner only on 5.10.2011, 60 days after the passing of the award and therefore he is not in a position to challenge the awards in appeal before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. 2. Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) provides for an appeal from the awards impugned in this writ petition to the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. The period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal is 60 days from the date of decision of the award. Interpreting the said provision, this Court has in **Lalithamma v. M.S.Co-operative Society** (1979 KLT 884), **Thankappan v. M.T.M.V. Co-operative Society** (1979 KLT WPC No.30945/2011 2 668) and **C.K.Damodaran v. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal** (1980 KLT 520) held that if the award was not delivered in the presence of the party, the period of limitation for the purpose of filing an appeal would start to run only from the date of knowledge of passing of the award and that in computing the period of limitation in such cases, the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the award has to be excluded. 3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, copies of the awards were communicated to the petitioner only on 5.10.2011. The awards were not passed in his presence. I am therefore of the opinion that the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal would start to run from only 5.10.2011, which according to the petitioner is the date on which copies of the awards were communicated to him as provided in rule 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Such being the situation, it cannot be said that the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal has expired. That apart, instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner can challenge the awards by filing a revision petition before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. Though no period of WPC No.30945/2011 3 limitation is prescribed for filing a revision petition, a learned single Judge of this Court has in **Sarojini Amma v. Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd.** (2005 (3) KLT 655) held that the revisional jurisdiction should be invoked within five months from the date of the award. Going by the date of the award, the said period also has not expired. The petitioner can therefore challenge the awards by way of revision, if period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal has expired. The petitioner has yet another prayer that the sixth respondent may be directed to consider the application filed by him for debt relief. In my opinion, if the petition filed by the petitioner before the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission is pending, it is for him to move the Commission for expeditious orders on the application. The mere fact that the petitioner has moved the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission is not a ground to entertain a challenge to the impugned awards, when an effective alternate remedy is available to the petitioner. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed without prejudice to the WPC No.30945/2011 4 right of the petitioner to challenge Exts.P6, P6(a), P6(b) and P6 (c) awards either in appeal or in revision before the Kerala Cooperative Tribunal. The petitioner can also move the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission seeking expeditious disposal of the application if any filed by him for debt relief. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)** vps WPC No.30945/2011 5