High Court Kerala High Court

Peethambaran vs Irinjalakuda Co-Operative … on 26 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Peethambaran vs Irinjalakuda Co-Operative … on 26 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17642 of 2009(A)


1. PEETHAMBARAN,RARAMBATH HOUSE,KARAMUKKU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL
                       ...       Respondent

2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :26/06/2009

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   -------------------------
                    W.P.(C.) No.17642 of 2009
            ---------------------------------
              Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order

passed by the 1st respondent declining the request made by the

petitioner for appointment under Rule 188A of the Kerala Co-

operative Societies Rules.

2. It is stated that the petitioner was married to one

Ms.Valsalakumari and in that wedlock, she gave birth to a son,

Mr.Vaisagh. Mrs.Valsalakumari expired on 22/06/1994, and

thereafter the petitioner got married to one Ms.Bhagyalakshmi on

02/09/1995. She was employed under the 1st respondent Bank.

She expired on 20/04/2008, and thereafter by Ext.P1, Mr.Vaisagh,

the son in the first marriage, applied for employment under Rule

188A of the KCS Rules, that was rejected by the 1st respondent as

per Ext.P2. It is challenging this communication, this writ petition is

filed.

3. Although, several contentions have been raised on the

WP(C) No.17642/2009
-2-

merits of the claim and to the invalidity of Ext.P2, I do not think it

necessary for me to pronounce on any of the contentions. This is

for the reason that Ext.P2 does not contain any reason why the

claim raised by Mr.Vaisagh is inadmissible.

4. Thus, Ext.P2 having been passed without any application

of mind, the said order will stand set aside. The 1st respondent is

directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the light

of the Rules, and if it is rejected, containing reasons thereon.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg