Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.PRASANNAKUMAR, SURYAPRABHA versus THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.PRASANNAKUMAR, SURYAPRABHA v. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE - WP(C) No. 20263 of 2006(K) [2007] RD-KL 1678 (22 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 20263 of 2006(K)

1. K.PRASANNAKUMAR, SURYAPRABHA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT,

3. REGISTRAR OF DAIRY CO-OPERATIVE

4. S.SUKUMARAN NAIR, PRESIDENT,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN

For Respondent :SMT.A.K.PREETHA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

Dated :22/01/2007

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 20263 of 2006 (K)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Under Exhibit P4 order dated 04/03/2006, the second respondent, the Director of Dairy Development, stayed Exhibit P2 order of promotion of the writ petitioner, and also further ordered the parties to maintain status quo.

2. The counsel for the additional fifth respondent submits that Exhibit P3 petition is pending before the third respondent, on which Exhibit P4 order was passed and the same may be directed to be disposed of.

3. The counsel for the writ petitioner, however, brought to the notice of this Court that the fourth respondent is a stranger, who had retired long back and he has got no locus standi, to file a representation, before the third respondent, on service matters relating to the writ petitioner or others, who are in service.

4. The counsel for the first respondent has submitted that the service matters between the Society and the employees, or the employees inter se, are to be considered as a dispute under W.P.(C) No.20263/2006 (K) 2 Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, in short 'the Act'. This has been considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Prakasini v.Joint Registrar [2006 (1)KLT 199], with which I am in respectful agreement. Therefore, the fourth respondent, who preferred Exhibit P3 representation before the second respondent has got no locus standi, and he has also got no right to file public interest litigation. In Gurpal Singh v.State of Punjab [2005 (3) KLT 588 (SC)], the Apex Court has considered that in service matters, public interest litigation should not be entertained, and following the decision in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v.Jitendra Kumar Mishra [1998 (7) SCC 273], should throw out such litigations. In the case at hand, the fourth respondent has got no right or interest in bringing a public interest litigation before any authorities. Therefore, in the light of the Gurpal Singh's case, cited above, the fourth respondent has got no right or interest to file any representation before the second respondent. Obviously, Exhibit P4 order passed by the second respondent staying the promotion of the writ petitioner has no standing. Therefore, I quash Exhibit P4. Implementing Exhibit P4 order, first respondent issued Exhibit P7 order dated 19/07/2006. The same has also no sustainability. Therefore, Exhibit P7 is also quashed. W.P.(C) No.20263/2006 (K) 3

5. The obvious question that is raised by the counsel for the additional fifth respondent is that, Exhibit P3 representation may be forwarded to the arbitration court for a just decision. Section 70B is dealing with the matters pending at the time of the amendment, which came into effect from 02/01/2003. In other words, all the disputes, that were pending as on 02/01/2003, shall be transferred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court. Exhibit P3 was preferred only on 28/02/2006. Therefore, Section 70B of the Act, has got no acceptance, as the same being not pending on 02/01/2003.

6. In the above facts situation, I direct the concerned persons, including the additional fifth respondent to approach the Co-operative Arbitration Court, if they are so advised, with any dispute, relating to the inter se seniority, or other matter coming within the ambit of Section 69 of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. (J.M.JAMES) Judge ms


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.