V.K.Kunhikrishnan Mambiar vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2006

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 27497 of 2003(W)


1. V.K.KUNHIKRISHNAN MAMBIAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, NOTICE FOR WHOM MAY BE
                       ...       Respondent

2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

 Dated :13/09/2006

 O R D E R
                                 K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE
                                  -----------------------------------
                                W.P.(C). NO. 27497 OF 2003
                                  ------------------------------------
                      Dated this the 13th day of September, 2006



                                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Registrar and

also by Ext.P16 order passed by the Government. The petitioner applied for

registration of Labour Contract and Construction Co-Operative Society with the

Joint Registrar on the basis of Ext.P3 permission granted to collect share capital.

But the Joint Registrar by Ext.P9 order found that the area of operation of the

proposed society would overlap with an already existing Labour Contract Co-

Operative Society. Said order was challenged in appeal before the Government

and now the Government also confirmed the order passed by the Joint Registrar.

These orders are challenged before this court.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner being the Chief Promoter of the Proposed society allowed to collect

share from individual members as per Ext.P3. On collecting the amount

petitioner filed an application for registration. But the Joint Registrar rejected

application for registration on the ground that the area of operation of the

proposed society would overlap with the existing society of same kind. Actually,

the area of proposed society is distinct and different and not overlapping with the

existing society. The learned counsel relies on Ext. P1 Government Order and

submits that even if there is any overlapping the Labour Contract Societies are

concerned this overlapping is not a reason for rejection of registration. This

Government Order was not considered either by the Registrar or by the

Government by passing orders impugned. Apart from the above Government

Order the petitioner relies on the judgment of this court reported in Kasaragod

Co-Operative Land Mortgage Bank v. State of Kerala & Others (1976 K.L.T 437)

where this court held that the overlapping of the area of operation is not a reason

for rejecting the application for registration of a Co-Operative Society. Apart from

the above it could be seen that in Ext.P16 the reasons stated for rejecting the

application for registration is that there is no evidence to show that the members

are skilled or unskilled. It is not necessary to specifically say that the members

are skilled or unskilled labourers, both may included in the society formed for the

labour purpose.

In the above circumstances, this court is of the view that Ext.P4 and P16 are

not sustainable in law. Accordingly Ext.P4 and Ext.P16 are set aside and the

first respondent-Government is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and shall

take a decision in the matter in the light of the judgment. While taking the fresh

decision the petitioner also may be given an opportunity of being heard, final

decision in the matter shall be as early as possible at any rate within four months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.

RV/