IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15469 of 2010(G)
1. M/S THE SILK EMPLOYEES WELFARE SOCIETY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECOTOR,THRISSUR.
3. GENERAL MANAGER,ROADS AND BRIDGES
4. M/S.SASTHA AUTO SALES AND SERVICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.PADMANABHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/06/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
----------------------------------
W.P(C) No.15469 OF 2010
----------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Society registered under the Travancore
Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act,
1955. Certain properties of the Society has been acquired by the
State. Petitioner’s grievance is that the compensation due in respect
thereof has not yet been paid to the petitioner. The acquisition was on
behalf of the third respondent. The third respondent forwarded a
cheque in the name of the Secretary of the Society to the District
Collector for onward transmission to the petitioner. But the District
Collector returned the same to the third respondent on the premise
that there is a dispute as to who is the Secretary of the Society. In
the meanwhile the petitioner is handicapped in so far as they are being
proceeded against by 4th respondent for recovery of certain debts due
from the petitioner to the 4th respondent, by bringing the property of
the Society to sale. It is under the above circumstances, petitioner
has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:
1. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
respondents 2 and 3 to disburse the compensation
amount as fixed pursuant to Ext.P1 meeting held on
7.9.2009 to the petitioner without further delay;
2. to issue any other writ or direction appropriate in the
circumstances of this case which this Hon’ble Court
deems just and necessary.
W.P(C) No.15469 OF 2010 2
2. I have heard the parties. The entitlement of the petitioner for
the compensation is not disputed. The only objection raised by the
second respondent is that in view of the dispute regarding as to who is
the Secretary of the Society, they are not in a position to forward the
cheque for the compensation amount to the petitioner. I am of the
opinion that the Constitution of the Society or the question as to who
is the Secretary etc. are not germain to the issue as far as
respondents 2 and 3 are concerned. They need only forward a crossed
cheque for the compensation amount to the Society as such. It is for
the Society gets the cheque cashed through the Bank. In the above
circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
The third respondent shall forward a crossed cheque drawn in
the name of the petitioner to the District Collector tomorrow itself.
The District Collector shall forward the same to the Society as soon as
the same is received from the third respondent. The above exercise
shall be completed within one week from today.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
cms