IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 1866 of 2006()
1. V.K.GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR,
... Petitioner
2. K.RAGHAVAN,
3. K.DAMODARAN NAMBIAR,
4. C.K.GOVINDAN,
5. K.C.PADMANABHAN,
6. K.K.GANGADHARAN,
7. V.SUKUMARAN,
Vs
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE TELLICHERRY TALUK CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE PRESIDENT,
4. M.P.HASSANKUNHI,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.SOHAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
Dated :05/01/2007
O R D E R
(V.K.BALI, C.J & M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No. 1866 of 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran, J:
W.P.(C).No.25573 of 2006, filed by seven individuals,
was not entertained by the learned single Judge, observing
that it would not have been possible for the Court to issue a
direction to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to
dispose of an application filed by them. They were former
employees of The Tellicherry Taluk Co-operative Marketing
and Processing Society. The Society was not having
working funds and a decision had been taken during
August,2005 for selling away certain landed properties
possessed by it for an amount of Rs.1,20,50,000/-. Such
amounts were to come to the Society and the petitioners
pointed out that as on the date of filing of the writ petition a
sum of Rs.38,23,056/-required to be earmarked in their
favour partly towards retirement benefits and partly
towards pension funds. They prayed for a writ of mandamus
[WA No.1866 of 2006]
-2-
directing the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kannur
to issue directions which were appropriate to keep aside
sufficient amounts from the funds which could have reached
the institution because of the sale of properties. The learned
single Judge found that perhaps it would have been possible
for the petitioners to resort to remedies under Section 69 of
the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, but the prayers as put
forward were not possible to be granted.
2. The appeal is filed by the appellants feeling
aggrieved about the judgment as above. We had heard
Mr.K.V.Sohan appearing for the appellants. Mr.M.Sasindran
with reference to counter affidavit filed by the second
respondent in the appeal, submitted that the prayers in the
appeal are totally unsustainable.
3. Going to the merits of the claims, Mr.Sasindran
submits that the amounts claimed as due have no relation
with actualities. He also submits that the petition to the Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies was not legally
sustainable, as the Society, as a body corporate, alone had
authority to decide on policy affairs. The monetary claims of
the petitioners/appellants, some of whom had retired a
[WA No.1866 of 2006]
-3-
decade back, according to him, stood fully settled and of
course there was defaulted payments to the Pension Fund,
but that arose because of oversight on the part of one of the
petitioners, who was functioning as the Managing Director.
He submits that the Society was indebted to third parties to
the tune of Rs.one crore and every effort was being made to
revitalise the institution and there was no possibility of
earmarking any funds towards any liability before hand and
such a procedure was never followed by any institution.
Therefore, in any case, the Joint Registrar could not have
advised the Society to adopt such procedure.
4. We note that the submission as above requires to
be accepted. The retired employees of course have a right for
demanding payments, which are due to them, but it may be
premature for them to insist that funds, which are in the
possession of the Society, are to be earmarked in their favour.
It is especially conceded that there has not been any decree
or order secured by them in respect of specified amounts. We
also note the submission of Mr.Sasindran that retirement
benefits have been granted to all the petitioners/appellants
and some of them have entrusted the amounts with the
[WA No.1866 of 2006]
-4-
Society as Fixed Deposits. It may even be possible for any of
them to close the account prematurely, but such matters do
not come within the purview of this writ appeal.
5. We find that the reliefs prayed for cannot be
granted. Relegating the appellants to appropriate remedies
available to them as recognised by the statute, the writ appeal
is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.K.BALI
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
Sd/-
M.RAMACHANDRAN
(JUDGE)
mks/
– True Copy –
P.S.to Judge