K.PRASANNAKUMAR v. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Jan 2007
- Bench
- M JAMES
Provisions considered
- Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 s. 69(2)(d)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. 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)2Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, in short…
Judgment
J.M.JAMES, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W.P.(C) No. 20263 of 2006 (K) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2007J U D G M E N TUnder Exhibit P4 order dated 04/03/2006, the second respondent, the Director of Dairy Development, stayed Exhibit P2order of promotion of the writ petitioner, and also further ordered the parties to maintain status quo.
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.
The counsel for the writ petitioner, however, brought to the notice of this Court that the fourth respondent is astranger, who had retired long back and he has got no locusstandi, to file a representation, before the third respondent, on service matters relating to the writ petitioner or others, who are in service.
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)2Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, in short 'the Act'. This has been considered by a learned SingleJudge of this Court in Prakasini v.Joint Registrar [2006 (1)KLT199], 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.Stateof 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, Iquash Exhibit P4. Implementing Exhibit P4 order, first respondent issued Exhibit P7 order dated 19/07/2006. The same has also nosustainability. Therefore, Exhibit P7 is also quashed. W.P.(C) No.20263/2006 (K)35.The obvious question that is raised by the counselfor the additional fifth respondent is that, Exhibit P3representation 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 on02/01/2003, shall be transferred to the Co-operative ArbitrationCourt.
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 theCo-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)Judgems
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 — s. 69(2)(d).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 22 Jan 2007. The bench was M JAMES.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.