IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19687 of 2007(R)
1. PALLIPPURAM PARAMESWARAKURUP,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,(CO-OPERATION)
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
3. PALLIPPURAM RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU CHERUKARA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :10/11/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.19687 OF 2007 (R)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenged Exhibit P1 by filing Exhibit P3
appeal before the Government. That has been rejected as per
Exhibit P7 stating that the appeal was filed only on 24-4-2007 and
hence it is out of time. The only reason given in Exhibit P7 is that
Exhibit P1 order was issued on 3-1-2007 and the appeal was filed
only on 24-4-2007. The date of the order for the purpose of an
appeal has to be taken as the date of the service of the copy of
that order on the person who would be aggrieved by that order.
In Exhibit P3 appeal under Section 83(i)J of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act, 1969, the petitioner has specifically
stated in Column I(2) that the order was communicated to him
and received by him by registered post on 23-2-2007. This has not
been found against Exhibit P4. It is, therefore, reasonable to
entertain the appeal filed on 24-4-2007. The petitioner has also a
case that the endorsement on Exhibit P5 shows that it was
W.P.(C) No.19687/2007
– 2 –
delivered on 23-4-2007. Whatever that be, ends of justice is
required that Exhibit P3 appeal is taken on file and considered
on merits. The rejection on that appeal as per Exhibit P7 is
contrary to law and the same is hence, quashed. The first
respondent is directed to take up Exhibit P3 appeal and pass
fresh orders, in accordance with law.
This writ petition is allowed as aforesaid.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
skr/11/11