K.P.Janarajan vs The Managing Committee Of … on 31 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 427 of 2009()


1. K.P.JANARAJAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KANDALLOOR
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPEREATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :31/03/2010

 O R D E R
                   C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                            P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
              ....................................................................
                 Writ Appeal Nos.427 & 147 of 2009
              ....................................................................
                Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010.

                                     JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

During hearing of these Writ Appeals, Government Pleader

submitted that Government has also equal grievance against the

judgment of the learned Single Judge and Writ Appeal is contemplated,

though with delay as usual. However, we thought if these Writ

Appeals are heard and dismissed, then Government need not waste time

preparing and filing Writ Appeal separately on their side. Accordingly

we have heard counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for the

first respondent.

2. On appellant’s complaint, enquiry was conducted and based on

the findings in the enquiry, the Board of Directors of the Society was

superceded under Section 32 of the Co-operative Societies Act, against

which writ petition filed by the first respondent was allowed by the

learned Single Judge. Even though Writ Appeal was admitted against

judgment, the Division Bench did not grant stay as a result of which the

2

Board continued until their tenure was over. Counsel for the first

respondent submitted that thereafter fresh election was held and new

Board has taken over the management of the Society. Challenge in the

Writ Appeals is only against judgment of the learned Single Judge

cancelling the supercession order and restoring the Board. We feel the

issues raised have become academic because the Board has continued

upto end of their tenure and thereafter fresh election was conducted

leading to constitution of new Board. Since the only issue raised in

the Writ Appeals is against judgment of the learned Single Judge

cancelling the supercession, we have to necessarily hold that the Writ

Appeals have become infructuous on account of the development stated

above. Consequently Writ Appeals are dismissed as infructuous.

Whatever is the legal issue, since we are not considering the merits of

the legal contentions raised, those questions are left open for being

raised before any authority.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

P.S.GOPINATHAN
Judge
pms