High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
V.K.GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR v. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE - WA No. 1866 of 2006  RD-KL 433 (5 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWA No. 1866 of 2006()
1. V.K.GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR,
3. K.DAMODARAN NAMBIAR,
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
2. THE TELLICHERRY TALUK CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE PRESIDENT,
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
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
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] 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] 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] 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
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.