IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34549 of 2008(K)
1. E.S.SHAJU, ERASSERY HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR,
3. THE POOVATHUMKADAVU FARMERS
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.GANGESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :02/12/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.34549 of 2008-K
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008.
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioner is a Pharmacist in an
establishment of the third respondent. On
allegations of certain monetary loss,
ARC.333/2008 has been filed by the third
respondent. It being a monetary claim, the first
respondent is adjudicating it. The petitioner has
filed a written statement raising a counter claim
in the said ARC. The petitioner contends that the
Managing Director of the third respondent is also
an Assistant Registrar and is senior to the first
respondent in the service under the Kerala Co-
operative Department. His allegation is that the
said person is interfering with the proceedings
in such a manner that it has become impossible
for the petitioner to face the proceedings before
the first respondent.
WP(C)34549/08 -: 2 :-
2.On instructions from the second respondent Joint
Registrar, the learned Government Pleader states
that though the Managing Director of the third
respondent is senior to the present incumbent
holding office as the first respondent, there is
no legal ground for any such apprehension
because, it is not possible or permissible for
the Managing Director of the third respondent to
interfere in the manner in which it is alleged.
3.The learned Government Pleader is right in
stating that merely on account of departmental
seniority between different officers, if
statutory proceedings have to be taken away from
the jurisdiction of one officer, it will result
in administrative chaos. That is not advisable.
At the same time, it also needs to be ensured
that a person facing a proceeding in a statutory
forum is entitled to the guarantee as to fairness
and transparency of the proceedings and also the
impartiality of the officer designated to decide.
WP(C)34549/08 -: 3 :-
This can be easily ensured in this case, if the
Managing Director of the third respondent does
not meddle with the proceedings before the first
respondent in the ARC in question. The petitioner
should have a fair opportunity to cross-examine
the witnesses. The first respondent has to ensure
that there is no interference from any quarter in
that matter and the only regulation can be that
which the first respondent would impose as a
presiding officer in terms of the law, practice
and procedure. Unless the third respondent’s
Managing Director is a necessary witness in the
proceedings, it is appropriate that he does not
participate in the proceeding because, obviously,
the case would be presented on behalf of the
third respondent by somebody else, duly
authorized.
For the aforesaid reasons, dispensing with notice
to the third respondent and preserving its right
to move for review of this judgment if aggrieved,
this writ petition is ordered directing that the
WP(C)34549/08 -: 4 :-
petitioner will be afforded a fair and complete
opportunity to place defence version, evidence
and materials, to cross-examine the witnesses and
to present the case before the first respondent.
The case shall be decided by the first respondent
in accordance with law, having regard to the
entire materials that would be placed. The
Managing Director of the third respondent will
take note of what is stated above and act
accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/041108