IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29 of 2010(C)
1. N.RAMAKRISHNAPILLAI,RADHA NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,DIARY DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
2. DIARY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,DIARY
3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE
4. P.GOPALAKRISHNAN,VIJAYA BHAVANAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :30/03/2010
O R D E R
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 29 OF 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a dairy farmer and a resident of
Kurunagappally Ward (Ward No:7 of Kulashekarapuram Panchayat).
Earlier, Ward No:7 of Kulashekarapuram Panchayat fell within the
area of operation of Kadathoor Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana
Sangham No:Q 167(D) APCOS. Since the office as well as the
collection centre of such society was situate far away, the dairy
farmers of the petitioner’s ward found it very difficult to sell their
milk and dairy products to the existing society. Therefore, the
society itself amended its bye laws deleting ward No:7 from its area
of operation.
2. After deletion of Ward No:7 from the area of operation of
the existing society, the petitioner along with other 24 dairy
farmers in ward No:7 submitted an application for the registration
of a new dairy co-operative society with Kurunagappally as its area
of operation. The first respondent issued a letter permitting the
petitioner to convene a meeting for the formation of a new dairy
society as proposed by him. The said communication is Ext.P3.
Pursuant to Ext.P3 the petitioner had approached the respondents
WPC 29/2010 2
requesting for the convening of a meeting of the persons who were
willing to join the new co-operative society. But, nothing was done.
In the above circumstances the petitioner has come to know that
another application for the registration of a new dairy society with
Kurunagappally area itself as the area of operation was under
consideration. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition
challenging the action of the respondents in proceeding with the
registration of a new society in the area of operation to which the
petitioner had submitted an earlier application.
3. This writ petition was admitted on 5.1.2010 and an interim
order of stay of further proceedings for registration of the new
society proposed by the fourth respondent was also granted.
4. On receipt of notice, the fourth respondent appeared
through counsel. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth
respondent as well as the first respondent. I have heard Mr.
V.G.Arun for the petitioner, Smt. P.A. Anitha for the fourth
respondent and the learned Senior Govt. Pleader for the first
respondent. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously.
5. According to the respondents a new society by name
Kurunagappally Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham No:Q.342(D)
APCOS has been registered on 22.12.2009. The registration
WPC 29/2010 3
certificate is produced as Exts.R4(e) by the fourth respondent and
as R1(5) by the first respondent. The Registration Certificate shows
that the said society had been registered even before the filing of
this writ petition. However, it is pointed out by the counsel for the
petitioner that since the process of registering a society as
proposed by him was in progress, the authorities had a duty to at
least hear him before permitting the registration of a new society
with the very same area of operation. The learned Senior
Government Pleader as well as the counsel for the fourth
respondent meets this contention by pointing out that though the
petitioner had been granted permission to convene a meeting of
the persons who were desirous of becoming members of the society
proposed by him, he did not convene such a meeting and therefore,
when the application submitted by the fourth respondent was
received, the same was processed and a new society was permitted
to be registered. He submitted that there is no irregularity in the
procedure that was adopted.
6. In view of the fact that a society has already been
registered as evidenced by the registration certificate well before
even the filing of this writ petition the substantial reliefs that are
prayed for in this writ petition have become infructuous. It is
WPC 29/2010 4
submitted that the new society has not started functioning for the
only reason that the interim order granted by this Court prevented
it from functioning. Therefore, there is no justification for
continuing the interim order any longer. In view of the above, it is
made clear that the society that has been registered as per Exts.R4
(e) and R1(5) registration certificate is free to start functioning.
7. At the same time, I notice that the petitioner had been
granted permission to convene a meeting of the persons who were
desirous of becoming members of the proposed society, but that no
further action has been taken in the matter thereafter. Though it
is stated in the counter affidavit of the first respondent that it is
because the petitioner had not convened the meeting that he had
been directed to convene, it is not in dispute that no proceedings
have been issued rejecting his proposal also. Therefore, the
proposal that was submitted by the petitioner supported by a
project report and other documents necessarily has to be processed
further in the light of the subsequent developments including the
registration of the new society. If necessary, the petitioner can
submit suitable modifications to his proposal. If he does so, the
first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and
shall take necessary action in the matter as expeditiously as
WPC 29/2010 5
possible and at any rate within a period of two months. The writ
petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
WPC 29/2010 6