Sydali J AG & Jyothis R.K v G.R.Ajith & Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
- Judgment Date
- 2019-01-23
- Court Decision / Holding
- This review petition is thus dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sydali J AG
- Jyothis R.K
Respondents
- G.R.Ajith
- R.G.Harilal
- K.V.Gireesh Kumar
- Ranjith G.R.
- Shyamalal P.K.
- Santhosh P.S.
- Vidhukum ar S.
- Sobhan Prasad V.P.
- Sheejadas D.L.
- Minimol S.M.
- Sree Devi V
- Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Thiruvananthapuram
- Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Thiruvananthapuram
- Police Co-operative Society Ltd. No.T.696, Nadavanam, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Administrator Police Co-operative Society Ltd. No.T 696, Nadavanam, Thiruvananthapuram
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • M. Sasindran
- • P. Shaheed
Counsels for Respondents
- • George Poonthottam (Sr.)
- • Nisha George
- • K.S. Mohammed Hashim
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a Kerala High Court review petition arising from WA No. 177/2018 concerning the Police Co-operative Society, Nadavantam (Nandavanam) in Thiruvananthapuram. The underlying writ appeal had directed the constitution of a three-member Administrative Committee to manage day-to-day affairs after the elected committee’s removal and related criminal proceedings against the society’s President. The review petitioners contended that the second petitioner/Convenor of the Administrative Committee was acting in a manner constituting gross misconduct and that the directions constituting the Committee contravene the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act; they argued that such policy or major decisions should have been taken by the competent Joint Registrar, not by the Court’s direction. The respondents argued that a review petition is not an avenue for substituting an appeal, and that the directions in the earlier judgment were made after considering germane factors; the Administrative Committee’s role was limited to day-to-day affairs and would not make major policy decisions, enroll members, or make appointments. The court heard submissions and, emphasising that the Committee’s scope is limited to daily administration, dismissed the review petition as lacking substantive grounds. It reinforced the principle that a review cannot replace an appeal, citing Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhari.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- A review petition cannot be used as a substitute to an appeal.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that the second respondent, as Convenor, has engaged in conduct amounting to gross misconduct in his capacity as Convenor of the Administrative Committee. They contend that the directions appointing a three-member Administrative Committee were predicated on circumstances in which the earlier elected committee had been removed and that the decision to appoint the Committee and its Convenor was a deliberate departure from the statutory framework of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. They urge that such major governance decisions should be the preserve of the Joint Registrar, not the court via review, and that the Committee’s mandate should be restricted to day-to-day administration rather than policy decisions or admissions and appointments. They seek relief on grounds that the order should be reviewed and corrected in light of statutory compliance and proper remedy under law.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that the review petition is not maintainable as a substitute for an appeal and that the directions already given were well-grounded and necessary to ensure smooth functioning of the society. They emphasize that the Administrative Committee was fashioned to handle routine matters and not to make major policy decisions or alter the fabric of membership and appointments. They contend that the petitioners have not demonstrated a substantive error or new matter warranting review, and that the remedy would lie in pursuing appropriate legal channels rather than a belated challenge to the earlier judgment. They rely on established precedent that review cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal and that the directions were given after considering germane factors.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhari | AIR 1995 SC 455 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that a review petition cannot be treated as a substitute for an appeal. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Sydali J AG & Jyothis R.K v G.R.Ajith & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.