M.Santhosh vs The Chemmaruthy Service … on 3 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33868 of 2008(F)


1. M.SANTHOSH, "ASWATHI", MUTTAPPALAM P.O.,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. B.LATHA, G.S.LAND, PRAYALAGIRI,

                        Vs



1. THE CHEMMARUTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

5. R.VALSALA, ATTENDER, CHEMMARUTHY

6. S.AMBILY, ATTENDER, DO,

7. G.S.SUNIL, SALES MAN, DO,

8. A.ABUBACKER, SALESMAN,

9. SAJAN, SALESMAN, CHEMMARUTHY SERVICE

10. S.SUNEESH, SALESMAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :03/12/2008

 O R D E R
                THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
               ------------------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) NO.33868 OF 200 (F)
               ------------------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008

                              J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are members of the first respondent society.

Certain selection and appointments were made in that society. Exhibit P9

has been issued by the competent authority interfering with that. The

society filed an appeal before the Government. Exhibit P11 shows that the

said appeal has been entertained. However, stay application has been

rejected. The mere institution of appeal does not result in stay of operation

of the decision. There is no such provision in the Kerala Co-operative

Societies Act. This principle is one of the primary foundations of the

appellate jurisdiction governed by Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. This position

is well settled by the law. In the case in hand the Government have

specifically rejected the stay application. This means that the appropriate

authority is bound to enforce Exhibit P9. The learned Government Pleader,

therefore, rightly states that the competent authority will look into and

further action would be taken on the basis of Exhibit P9.

W.P.(C) No.33868/2008

– 2 –

Under such circumstances, this writ petition is ordered

directing that further action in terms of Exhibit P9 shall follow, subject to the

result of the appeal in relation to Exhibit P11 is issued. Having regard to the

nature of the directions afore-issued, and having heard the learned counsel

for third and fourth respondents, notice to other respondents is dispensed

with, preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE

skr/5/12