Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.K.MAMMUTTY, MEMBER versus THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.K.MAMMUTTY, MEMBER v. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE - WP(C) No. 903 of 2007(G) [2007] RD-KL 567 (9 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 903 of 2007(G)

1. K.K.MAMMUTTY, MEMBER,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent

2. THE PADINJARATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE

For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :09/01/2007

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

W.P.(C). 903/2007 Dated this the 9th day of January, 2007

JUDGMENT

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that Ext.P1 notice had been issued under Rule 44(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, in short 'the Rules', and an order is proposed to be passed without hearing him, as contemplated under Rule 44(3) of the Rules.

2. The counsel for the writ petitioner submits that Ext.P1 notice had been issued on 21.12.2006. The hearing was posted on 28.12.2006 at 11.00 a.m. The receipt of Ext.P1 notice, by the writ petitioner, was after the time fixed for hearing on 28.12.2006. The counsel, therefore, submits that the non-compliance of the provision under Rule 44(3) of the Rules, would cause difficulties not only to the Board of Directors, but also to the writ petitioner, Co-operative bank, as well.

3. I heard the arguments advanced by the learned W.P.(C).903/2007 2 Senior Government Pleader. As per the provisions under Rule 44(3) of the Rules, before passing an order, the Registrar shall give an opportunity to that person to state his objections, if any, against the proposed action and, if the person wishes to be heard, he shall be given an opportunity to be heard, which is mandatory in nature. Natural justice demands the same as well. Notice had been received by the writ petitioner, as averred in the writ petition, after the time fixed for hearing.

4. Therefore, without entering into any discussion on the merit of the matter, I set aside Ext.P1 notice dated 21.12.2006, and direct the first respondent, the Joint Registrar, to give an opportunity to the writ petitioner to file his objections and he shall also be heard before passing an order, as contemplated under Rule 44(3) of the Rules.

5. The learned Government Pleader, however, expresses his fear that, if an order is passed, the matter would become infructuous. But it is necessary to ensure W.P.(C).903/2007 3 that the natural justice is followed and the mandatory provision is complied with. Hence, I direct the Joint Registrar to pass an order as required and the order shall not be implemented, otherwise than as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. The writ petition is disposed of as above. J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs


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.