Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT662
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. A white elephant has a mahout. He has helpers. The mahout and helpers ate, belched and slept. They never cared for the elephant. For, it belonged to a great lot of people; the commoners, urchins, the rich and the poor, the bold and the meek, the fleecing and the righteous; yet the citizens of a great nation, living in the 'God's Own Country'. They, unfortunately, by compulsions of their collective living, had to entrust the elephant to be cared for, by hands, chosen not by them. The elephant lost, not only its tiers and tyres, but also, its trunk, tusk, tummy, et al. The helpers changed as they aged. The mahout changed at the trustee's will. Followed the true owners, apparently, faithfully. For, they couldn't but. And, hadn't the will, but not to follow. As a bedtime one, this tale would shudder even an infant. As a truth, this stares at the citizenry. This is but, the story of the petitioner, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009(3)KLJ110
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Acquisition, assignment and reforms are the three major aspects on land. That there are three important legislations in all these areas would show the need and relevance for proper order in this field. In the case before us, it is interesting to note that the events are to be analysed with reference to all these three legislations, namely, Land Acquisition Act, Land Assignment Act and Land Reforms Act. It is significant to note that the events chronologically are well balanced; acquired, assigned and reformed, as in the case of legislation also, 1894, 1960 and 1963 respectively.2. Res clamat domino - land cries for its master is a well known principle. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to the facts from the roots. In 1963 Government of India decided to establish in Kerala a machine tools factory in the central sector as part of the Third Five Year Plan. It was decided to entrust the project to Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT619
K. Hema, J.1. Can an amount due to a Co-operative Society from its member be recovered from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG, for short), under Section 37 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short)? Can such dues be recovered from DCRG under Rule 3 Part III, Kerala Service Rules (KSR, for short)? What does the term 'salary' mean in this context? These are the three main questions which are to be considered in this appeal.2. Brief facts are as follows: Appellant retired from government service on 30.6.2000 as Sub Registrar. But, DCRG was not paid even after expiry of two years of retirement and hence, he filed O.P.No. 22258 of 2002 before this Court. Accordingly, this Court directed for fixation of liability and payment of DCRG within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Thereafter, 2nd respondent-District Registrar issued Ext.P8 letter dated 26.2.2003 to Sub Treasury Officer to withhold an amount of Rs. 76000/- from appellant's DCRG, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(1)KLT1
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The only question arising for consideration in this Writ Appeal before us is as to whether a resolution adopting a no-confidence motion against the President of a Cooperative Society is capable of being rescinded by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 176 of the Co-operative Societies Rules or whether the same could only be canvassed in an election dispute under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act').2. The facts of the case fall in a very narrow compass. The 1st respondent in this Writ Appeal was elected as the President of the Neyyattinkara Government Servants Co-operative Society Ltd. No. (T) 280 on 1-6-2003. On 24-8-2006, a meeting of the managing committee passed a no-confidence motion moved by seven members of the Society against the 1st respondent as evidenced by Ext. P1. Alleging that this resolution was passed in violation of the procedure prescribed by Rule 43A of the Rules, the 1st respondent filed Ext. P3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009(1)KLJ211
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.2. The petitioner challenges the rejection of the nomination submitted by him for election to the committee of a co-operative society. Admittedly, he did not make the declaration to be made by the candidate, though he states that he has made a declaration to be made by a candidate who is contesting to the seat reserved for SC/ST. He, therefore, contends that such a declaration would be sufficient and would be one in lieu of the declaration of the candidate as required by Form No. 36 issued in terms of Rule 35A(6)(a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, for short, the 'Rules'. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that a declaration that the petitioner is qualified to contest for election in the seat reserved for SC/ST candidates in the election proposed to be held on a particular day should necessarily be treated to include his declaration that he has no disquali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLT71
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.A. No. 2700/2007:1. The appellant is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the election held on 23.9.2007 to the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent Co-operative Society. The appellant is one of the returned candidates. This Court admitted the writ petition and ordered notice on the respondents. This Court also passed an interim order restraining the newly elected Managing Committee from enrolling new members and also from making appointment of any employees. The appellant filed a counter affidavit, raising a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the Co-operative Societies Act is a self-contained code. It provides for an effective alternative machinery for resolution of election disputes. Further, it was also contended that as the disputes raised in this writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT584
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The first respondent in Election O.P. 12/2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, which is the designated court for conducting court for conducting trial of Election Petitions arising from the election to the local bodies, is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The petitioner and the respondents were candidates for the election to Ward No. VI of Paingottur Grama Panchayat in Ernakulam District for which polling was held on 24.9.2005. The petitioner was declared elected. The petitioner secured 358 votes and the first respondent secured 327 votes. The second respondent got only five votes. 11 votes were declared invalid.2. The first respondent filed O.P. No. 12/2005 to declare the election of the petitioner void on the ground that the petitioner is an employee working in Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara, run by the Institute of Human Resources Development for Electronics ('IHRDE' for short) which is a corporation fully controlled by the Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT199
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Board of the second respondent Co-operative Bank resolved on 6-2-2003, among other things, to promote the writ petitioner with effect from 1-1-2003. Following that Ext.P1 proceedings No. 1/2003 was issued by the President of the Co-operative Bank on 10-2-2003.2. Before the said PI decision was taken, amendments made as per Act 1 of 2000 to Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act were given effect to, with effect from 2-1-2003. Thereby Clause (d) of Sub-section 2 of Section 69 brought all disputes in connection with the employment, including their promotion and inter se seniority under the canopy of the word 'disputes' for the purpose of Section 69(1). The last limb of Section 69(1) provides that such disputes shall be decided by the arbitration court or the Registrar, as the case may be and no other court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. In my considered view; this is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT908
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The Electoral Officer of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission issued notification dated 19th August, 2002 (Ext.Pl in O.P. 27295/02) for holding election to the Managing Committee to the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited (MATSYAFED). As per the notification, 15 members were to be elected, viz., 13 members from the general seat, one member from SC/ST and one lady member. Election was scheduled to be held on 18th September, 2002. Nominations had to be filed on 5th September, 2002 and its scrutiny was scheduled on 6th September, 2002. The Returning Officer, MATSYAFED, accepted the nomination papers and rejected some of the nomination papers on the ground that the societies represented by those persons who filed the nominations were defaulters or in default to the apex society-the MATSYAFED. The President of the Pulluvila Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. No. F(T) 28 Sri. Lordan filed nomination a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ501Ker
Thomas, Ag.C.J.1. The Secretary of a Co-operative Society (for short 'the Society') was removed from that post by a resolution adopted by the managing committee of the Society. She complained to the Joint Registrar (third respondent herein) against the said resolution. As per the proceedings dated October 15, 1994 (Ext.P8) third respondent rescinded the decision of the managing committee and directed the Society to reinstate the Secretary. Validity of Ext.P8 is now challenged by the President of the Society in the Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition. Hence this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.2. The main business of the Society is procurement of copra as agent of Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation. First respondent was the Secretary of the Society. On July 2, 1992, in a surprise check, shortage of a huge quantity of copra in the stock was detected. Secretary of the Society was...
Tag this Judgment!