WA.No. 171 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.20498 of 2012

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 18TH MAGHA, 1939** **WA.No. 171 of 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 20498/2012, DATED 13.12.2017 ----------** ## **APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 5, 8 AND 9 :** - **1 G.R.AJITH,** **MELEATTUPURATH VEEDU, AMBALAMUKHU, KOWDIAR P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT-695 003.** - **2 K.R.MOHANARAJ (MEMBER),** - **(ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE), THE POLICE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE** - **SOCIETY LTD. NO.T686, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 014.** - **3 ANTONY (MEMBER),** - **(ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE), THE POLICE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE** **SOCIETY LIMITED NO.T686, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 014.** ## **BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4, 6, 7 AND 10 :** **1. T.S.BAIJU, FORMER PRESIDENT, THE POLICE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T686, TRIVANDRUM, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 014, NOW RESIDING AT PULIYARATHALA VEEDU, ATUKAL, PANAYAMAUTTOM P.O., NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM.** **2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM-695 035.** **4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CHENKALCHOOLA, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** **5. THE ADMINISTRATOR (UNIT INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES), PAPPANAMCODE UNIT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** **6. THE POLICE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T.686 TRIVANDRUM, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 014, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.** **..2/-** **..2..** ## **WA.No. 171 of 2018** - **7. M.SOMANATHAN (CONVENOR) ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, THE POLICE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T.686, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM-695014. [DELETED]** - **8. R.ASOKAN NAIR,** - **AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN NAIR (LATE), MADATHUVILAKAM, CHEKKAKONAM, KARAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 064,[DELETED]** - **R7 AND R8 DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AT THE APPELLANTS RISK, AS PER ORDER DATED 24.01.2018 IN I.A.NO.91/2018 AND C.M.A.NO.109/2018.** - **R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR** - **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN** - **R2 TO R4 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM** - **R5 & R6 BY SRI.BABU S.NAIR (NO MEMO)** - **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Msd.** **17.03.2018** **WA.No. 171 of 2018** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CO.OP C1/781/2017 CO-OP DATED 08.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msd. 17.03.2018** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN &** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **W.A.No.171 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.20498 of 2012** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 7[th] day of February, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J** This appeal has been filed by respondents 5, 8 and 9 in W.P.(C) No.20498 of 2012. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, assailing Ext.P15 order issued by the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Society, invoking powers under Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, [for short, 'Act'], and superseding the Managing Committee of the Police Staff Co-operative Society, the first respondent herein, of which the respondents 3 to 6 herein were members. Ext.P15 order was issued in the year 2012 and the first respondent herein filed this writ petition impugning the same on various grounds. 2. The matter was heard in detail by a learned 2 W.A.No.171 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.20498 of 2012 Judge of this court, who after assessing the contentions and submissions made before him, delivered the judgment impugned herein allowing the writ petitioner/first respondent herein to invoke the appellate remedy, as is provided under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act and further ordered that even though Sub clause 2 of Section 83 provides for a six months period of limitation, the writ petitioner would be entitled to prefer the appeal notwithstanding such limitation of time. 3. The appellants impugn the judgment of the learned single Judge specifically on two grounds, namely, that an appeal under Section 83(1)(j) is not a proper remedy against Ext.P15 order issued under Section 32(1) of the Act, and that, even assuming it to be a remedy available to the writ petitioner, the learned single Judge was in error in allowing him to prefer it beyond the period of time prescribed under Sub-clause (2) of Section 83 of the Act. 4. We have heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned W.A.No.171 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.20498 of 2012 3 counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.Babu S.Nair, learned counsel for 5[th] and 6[th] respondents and learned Government Pleader for the second respondent. 5. The wood cut of the constitutive facts in this case is that Ext.P15 order was issued on 17.08.2012 and the writ petitioner, who was the member of the committee of the Society, had been superseded by that order. This writ petition was filed on 22.08.2012 and after hearing the writ petition, the learned single Judge disposed of the matter on 13.12.2017. It remains that at the time when the writ petition was filed, the period of time prescribed under Section 83(2) of the Act, for filing an appeal had not lapsed but concededly at the time when the writ petition was heard, this period had lapsed. The question, therefore, is whether the learned single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 83(1)(j) against Ext.P15 order and that too beyond the time prescribed under Section 83(2) of the Act. 4 W.A.No.171 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.20498 of 2012 4. As we have indicated above, the primary contention of the petitioner is that the remedy now granted to the writ petitioner by the learned single Judge, namely, to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Government of Kerala under Section 83(1)(j) is not a proper remedy. Sri.George Poonthottam, refers to the judgments in _**Jose Kuttiyani and Ors. v.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, Trivandrum and Ors. [AIR 1982 KERALA 12]**_ to drive home his contentions that as against the order of supersession issued under Section 32(1) of the Act, an appeal under Section 83(1)(j) is not the apposite remedy. 6. We are certain, going by the precedents cited above, that this submission holds substantial force. It has been settled by this court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the appellate remedy, prescribed under Section 83(1)(j) against orders of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, is not one that would apply in the case of an order of supersession passed by W.A.No.171 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.20498 of 2012 5 the said Authority under Section 32(1) of the Act. 7. That apart, the additional question is whether, even assuming that such a remedy was available, the learned single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petitioner to invoke such remedy beyond the period of limitation prescribed statutorily. On this issue also we do not require the labour much because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently in _**Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd., and others**_ **(2017) 5 SCC 42** declared the law emphatically that, where the Statute provides for a particular period of limitation, within which an action has to be taken, it would not be justified for this court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to expand it or to grant relief allowing the petitioner to invoke the remedy even beyond such time. Since the declarations of law in this area are now emphatic and conclusive and since it is binding on us, we cannot take a different view at all. W.A.No.171 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.20498 of 2012 6 8. Viewed in that perspective, we are of the certain view that the learned single Judge was in error in allowing the writ petitioner to invoke the appellate remedy provided under Section 83(1)(j) beyond the period prescribed under Section 83(2), namely within a period of 60 days from the date on which the impugned order was passed. The question whether such a remedy itself was a proper remedy to have been allowed to the writ petitioner is also an issue that has been already considered and decided by the Hon'ble Court, as we have already noticed above. The writ petition, therefore, will have to be heard and decided on merits rather than relegating the parties to relief under Section 83(1)(j). 9. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent makes a fervent plea at this time that since the elections are likely to be held imminently, the writ petition may be directed to be disposed of quickly. We are, however, of the view that it would not be proper from our part to make such an order and we W.A.No.171 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.20498 of 2012 7 leave the parties to move the learned Single Judge for an expeditious hearing disposal of the writ petition. In such view of the matter, we are compelled, being without any other option, to allow this writ appeal vacating the directions and setting aside the judgment impugned in this appeal. Consequently, the Registry is directed to place the matter for fresh hearing before a learned Single Bench according to the roster. Sd/- **P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** AMV/31/01/2018