IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20774 of 2009(N)
1. MUTHALAMADA(EAST)KSHEERA VYAVASAYA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY
3. LALITHA RAMAKRISHNAN, CHAPPAKKAD,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/08/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.20774 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
In this writ petition the prayer sought for is to quash
Ext.P3. There is a further prayer to declare that Ext.P3 order
is not in consonance with the requirements of the law for
the purpose of exercising powers under Section 101 of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and therefore bad in law.
2. Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered
under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and
having its area of operation spread over ward Nos.2 to 8
and 10 to 14 of the Muthalamada Grama Panchayat. It is
stated that based on Ext.P4 made by the 2nd respondent
and others, by Ext.P1 the petitioner was directed to amend
the bye laws excluding ward No.11 from its area of
operation. That was contested in Ext.P2 reply submitted by
the petitioner and subsequently Ext.P3 order was issued by
WP(c).No.20774/09 2
the first respondent exercising its powers under Section 101
of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act exempting the
proposed Chappakkad Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham
in ward No.11 of Muthalamada Panchayat from the provisions
of clause(c) of Sub Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. It is
challenging Ext.P3 and with the prayers as stated aforesaid
this writ petition is filed.
3. The question that arises for consideration is, whether
by the incorporation of another society, within its area of
operation, can the petitioner society be said to be legally
aggrieved, to maintain a writ petition. A reading of the writ
petition shows that by the incorporation of a new society, over
the area of operation of the petitioner society is not affected
nor is it affected in any other manner. In such circumstances,
it cannot be said that the petitioner society is legally aggrieved
to maintain a challenge against Ext.P3, which in effect permits
incorporation of another society.
WP(c).No.20774/09 3
4. This very issue came up for consideration of this court
in Kunju Kunju, President, Alleppy Co-operative Land
Mortgage Bank Ltd. V. State of Kerala and Ors.(1971 KLT 350),
where it is held that since no legal rights of the petitioner
therein can be said to have been affected by the grant of
registration to another society, there was no obligation to the
State Government to give notice or offer a hearing. It has been
stated thus in paragraph 3 as follows;
“It may be that at the time when the petitioner
society was registered it has framed its bye laws
by including the Taluk of Shertallai also within the
area of its operation since at that time there was
no similar society functioning in Shertallai. Neither
by reason of the inclusion of any particular locality
as part of the area of operation of a society in the
relevant clause in its bye-laws nor on account of
the approval of such bye-law by the competent
authority under the Act can it be said that a vested
right of monopolistic banking activity has accrued
to a particular society, so as to precludefrom the
Registrar
subsequently grantingState
or the Government
society to operate in anyregistration said area. In
to another
my view, no legal right ofpart society can be said
of the
the
to have been affected by the grant of registration
to another society to function in a locality which
for the time being stands included within the area
of operation of the former society. I find that I amWP(c).No.20774/09 4
supported in this view by the decision of Krishna
Rao, J of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in The
Bheeminipatnam Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. V.
The government of Andhra Pradesh(1967) 1 An. WR. 244,
which has been subsequently affirmed on appeal
by a Division Bench of that High Court in The
Vizianagaram Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. V.
The Bheeminipatnam Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank
Ltd.(1968) 1 An. WR. 52.”
5. Again in the judgment in Kasaragod Co-operative
Land Mortgage Bank V. State of Kerala & Ors. (1976 KLT 437
it has been held as follows;
The question arises in this case in regard to the
affairs of the Kasaragod Co-operative Land
Mortgage Bank, whose area of operation falls in
part within the area of operation of the Hosdrug
Taluk Land Mortgage Bank, which has been
directed to be registered under S.7(1) of the Co-
operative Societies Act. The contention raised by
the petitioner’s counsel is that the Registrar ( in
this case, actually the action was taken by the
Deputy Registrar) has not applied his mind to, or
been satisfied about, the condition under S.7(1)
(c) of the Act, namely, that the areas of the two
Societies should not overlap before registration
could be granted. For the one thing, we are not
prepared to accept this on the averment of the
petitioner, for another, assuming that this is so,
and that he granted registration overlooking this
requirement, it appears to us that a Society like
the petitioner cannot have any legal grievance
against the action which can be redressed underWP(c).No.20774/09 5
Article 226. To that effect is the recent decision of
the Supreme Court in J.M. Desai V. Roshan Kumar(AIR
1976 SC 578) following the principle of the earlier
decision in N.R. & F. Mills V. NTC and Bros.(AIR
1971 SC 246). To that effect was also the decision
of Eradi J. in 1971 KLT 350 referred to earlier and
noticed in my earlier judgment in O.P. Nos.1285
and 1488 of 1974. On this principle, we are of the
opinion that the petitioner in this case cannot
have any grievance. That is sufficient to dismiss
this writ petition. “
In the light of the aforesaid two judgments, in my view,
this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that
the petitioner is not legally aggrieved.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.20774/09 6