IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13820 of 2009(V)
1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT)
... Respondent
2. THE SENIOR AUDIT OFFICER (WELFARE),
3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.G.JANARDHANA KURUP (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/05/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 13820 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Consumers’ Co-operative Society of the Employees of the
Account General’s Office filed this writ petition seeking to quash
Ext.P4, a communication issued by the 2nd respondent, directing
closure of the Society with immediate effect.
2. Facts stated are that, in 2001 Ext.P7 was issued fixing the
working timings of the Society, in order to curtail absenteeism of
the employees and presence of outsiders in the premises of the
Accounts General’s Office during working hours. Subsequently, the
society was issued Ext.P1 calling upon them to produce certain
documents and also requiring them to confine their activities during
the timings mentioned therein. On its receipt petitioner filed Ext.P2,
where they have explained the necessity to work during 10 a.m. to
5 p.m and requesting that they be allowed to function during the
aforesaid timings. A reading of Ext.P2 also shows that the petitioner
sought time for production of the documents which were directed
W.P.(C) No.13820/09
-2-
to be produced in Ext.P1. Subsequently, they were issued Ext.P3,
which was followed by Ext.P4 ordering closure of the society. It is in
this background this writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that for the last 46 years the Society has been functioning between
10 a.m. to 5 p.m and that in this respect, there has not been any
complaint what so ever against the society. It is also stated that on
the allegation of absenteeism, no disciplinary action has been
initiated by respondents against any one in the Accountant
General’s Office. It is also pointed out that two other societies are
functioning during the aforesaid timings and no steps whatsoever
has been initiated against the aforesaid societies.
4. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents 1 and 2, referring to the statement filed by him, urges
the circumstances that lead to the fixation of the timings as
indicated in Ext.P1. It is stated that soon after the issuance of
Ext.P7, a committee consisting of two officers was appointed and
they submitted Ext.R2(a) report suggesting that the Society may be
directed to regulate their timing schedule as indicated in the report.
W.P.(C) No.13820/09
-3-
It is stated that it was in pursuance to the report that Ext.P1 was
issued and that the direction therein was not complied with.
According to him, in order to prevent absenteeism and to prevent
presence of outsiders in the office premises, it was necessary to
regulate the working of the society. It is stated that the other two
Co-operative Societies are Credit Societies and therefore the nature
of the function of those societies are incomparable with the
functioning of the petitioner society. It is stated that, in all other
officer premises in India, belonging to the respondent, the societies
are allowed to function in the manner ordered by the respondent.
5. Having heard both sides, I am inclined to think that, if as
stated by the petitioner, the Society has been functioning in the
manner as claimed by them for the last 46 years, when a change is
effected that ought to have been done with notice to the society. I
notice that when Ext.P1 was issued, the society filed Ext.P2 reply to
the Senior Deputy Accountant General where they have highlighted
the necessity of keeping the shop open during the period from 10
a.m to 5 p.m. None of the subsequent communications issued by
the first or 2nd respondent show that the contentions urged by
W.P.(C) No.13820/09
-4-
petitioner in Ext.P2 have been noticed. So much be so, I feel it is
only appropriate that the first respondent considers Ext.P1 in the
light of Ext.P2 and with notice to the petitioner. I direct the first
respondent to consider the matter as above and pass a fresh order
in this matter untrammeled by Ext.P4 and taking into account the
timing suggested in Ext.R1(a) report also, at any rate within 4 weeks
from today. It is directed that, in the meanwhile the petitioner will
be permitted to work, as directed by this court by order dated
19.5.2009.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
vi
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)