Walayar Milk Producers Co-op Society Ltd. & The Managing Committee v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **WA NO. 1849 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 21721/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF** ## **KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS:** - 1 WALAYAR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. NO. P. 100 D, APCOS, CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR DAM P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 624, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, WALAYAR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCEITY LTD, NO. P. 100 D, APCOS, CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR DAM P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 624, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS. N.RAGHURAJ VIVEK MENON SAYUJYA ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 SELVARAJ A., AGED 57 YEARS S/O. ASHIRVADAM, SILVASREE HOUSE, CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD - 678 624. - 2 SAKTHIVEL R., S/O. RAMASWAMY KOUNDER, DAM ROAD, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD - 678 624. - 3 SIVALINGAM N., S/O. NACHIMUTHU KOUNDER, DAM ROAD, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD - 678 624. - 4 SUBRAMANINAN V., S/O. VELUSWAMY KOUNDER, DAM ROAD, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD - 678 624. - 5 MANIKANDAN, S/O. ARUCHAMY, PAMPUMPARA KALAM, WALAYAR, **Writ Appeal Nos. 1849 of 2022 & 1851 of 2022** **2** PALAKKAD - 678 624 - 6 K. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KALIYAPPA KOUNDER, DAM ROAD, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD - 678 624. - 7 MARTIN JOSE, S/O. PHILIP, CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD - 678 624. - 8 BALASUBRAMANIAN, S/O. PODARASWAMY KOUNDER, KULIYANKAD, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD - 678 624. - 9 KURISU XAVIER, S/O. AROGYA MARIYADAS, KOVILPALAATHAR (H), PAMPUMPARA, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD -678 624. - 10 ANTONY PHILOMIN RAJ, S/O. AROGYASWAMY CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD - 678 624. - 11 DHARMALINGAM, S/O. PAZHANI MUTHU KOUNDER, KULIYANKAD, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD - 678 624. - 12 CHARLES, S/O. MAHIMAIRAJ, ATTIPATHY, WALAYAR DAM POST, PALAKKAD - 678 624. - 13 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. - 14 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 501. - 15 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WALAYAR POLICE STATION, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD - 678 624. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI T K VIPINDAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1851/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **Writ Appeal Nos. 1849 of 2022 & 1851 of 2022** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** ## **WA NO. 1851 OF 2022** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 16452/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS:** WALAYAR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.., NO.P.100 D,APCOS,CHANDRAPURAM,WALAYAR DAM P.O.,PALLAD-678 624,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. N.RAGHURAJ SAYUJYA VIVEK MENON ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. - 2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOP,ENT DEPARTMENT,CIVIL STATION PALAKKAD-678 501. - 3 ARUMUGHAN N., S/O.NATARAJ KOUNDER,PAMPUMPARA,WALAYAR, PALAKKAD-678 624. - 4 INDU RANI,AGED 52 YEARS,W/O.LATE RAMESH,WALAYAR DAM P.O.,PALAKKAD-678 624. BY ADV K.T.THOMAS ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI T K VIPINDAS **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1849/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Writ Appeal Nos. 1849 of 2022 & 1851 of 2022** **4** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.** **-------------------------------------** **Writ Appeal Nos. 1849 of 2022 & 1851 of 2022** **--------------------------------------------Dated this the 09[th] December, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K.Vinod Chandran, J.** The writ appeals arise from a common judgment in two writ petitions; one filed by a Milk Producer's Society and the other it's members. A dispute arose in the Society between the President and some of its members. An Administrative Committee had to be appointed for reason of six members of the Managing Committee resigning, in view of the allegations against the President. On fresh elections held, the very same person came back into the office of the President and one of the members challenged the election before the Co-operative Arbitration Court. On being elected back, the President allegedly started harassing the members who were working against him and refused to accept the milk supplied by them. An altercation ensued and there was allegation raised of obstruction of the functioning of the Society and assault of its employees. The Society issued notices under Rule 16(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, threatening removal from the **Writ Appeal Nos. 1849 of 2022 & 1851 of 2022** **5** membership of the Society, which threat was also carried out. A complaint was filed by the expelled members before the Deputy Director and pursuant to the direction in a writ petition, the Deputy Director considered the matter and rescinded the decision of the Managing Committee of the Society expelling the members from its membership. Despite the expulsion having been set aside the Society refused to accept milk from the said members. There were also some observations against the members who faced expulsion, in the order passed by the Deputy Director, which rescinded the expulsion; for the provision under which the action initiated did not confer such powers with the Managing Committee. Both these aspects were questioned in one of the writ petitions, from which one of the instant appeals arise. Two of those, who faced expulsion approached this Court earlier with a writ petition, in which an interim order was granted permitting supply of milk to the Society; which interim order was granted to the present writ petitioners also. 2. The Society filed an appeal from the decision of the Deputy Director and also filed a writ petition seeking expeditious disposal. Both the above writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by a learned Single Judge, directing the appeals and stay petition preferred **Writ Appeal Nos. 1849 of 2022 & 1851 of 2022** **6** by the Society and the appeals contemplated by the members to be disposed of together. The Government considered the appeals filed by the members and the Society and rejected both the appeals. The order of the Deputy Director rescinding the decision of the Society was upheld, finding that R.16(3) does not empower the Society to expel the members on the grounds alleged. The Deputy Director found that despite proof of the members having acted against the interest of the Society, the committee did not have the authority to expel the members invoking R.16(3); both of which findings were affirmed by the Government by Ext.P10. 3. The challenge of the Society to Ext.P10 order is on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, which was found to be fallacious by the learned Single Judge especially considering the fact that there was an argument note submitted before the 3[rd] respondent, also raising grounds in the appeal filed by the Society. Before us also the learned Counsel would allege that the Society was not put to notice of the hearing of the appeal filed by the Society, evidenced from Ext.P8 notice. It is the argument that in Ext.P8 notice, the reference was only to the appeals filed by the members and this was in violation of the directions in the judgment, which required the appeal filed by the **Writ Appeal Nos. 1849 of 2022 & 1851 of 2022** **7** members and the Society to be disposed of together. 4. We are unable to accept the argument raised by the appellant's Counsel. Ext.P8 also referred to the judgment in WP(C) No. 9740/2020 and WP(C) No.10096/2020, in which the direction to dispose off both the appeals together was issued. The direction therein was to consider both the appeals of the members and the Society together. It is very clear that at the time of disposal of the writ petition there were no appeals filed by the members. It was only on the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the members that they too would prefer appeals from the order of the Deputy Director, that the learned Single Judge directed the appeal filed by the Society along with any appeal preferred by the members to be disposed of together. This is the reason why the appeals filed by the members, subsequently, were specifically referred as item No.1 in Ext.P8 notice, produced in W.P (C) No. 16452 of 2021 and as item No.2, Ext.P7 judgment was also specifically referred to. It is fallacious for the appellant to now contend that there was no notice of the Society's appeal, Again as noticed by the learned Single Judge, the proceedings would indicate that the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common order, Ext.P10 and the society also put forth their arguments **Writ Appeal Nos. 1849 of 2022 & 1851 of 2022** **8** in the hearing conducted. Learned Single Judge according to us, rightly referred to _**Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54**_ to hold that an interference to the impugned order on the ground raised of violation of principles of natural justice; which in any case does not exist, would in any event, will also be a futile exercise; since the action against the members under R.16(3) cannot at all be justified. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeals _in limine_ . Sd/- **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** **jma**