Jojo Joseph v. Deputy Director Of Dairy Development
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/22ND ASWINA, 1937 WA.No. 2246 of 2015 () IN WP(C).29988/2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 29988/2015 DATED 07-10-2015 ------------- APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS :- ----------------------------
1. JOJO JOSEPH VILANGUPARAYIL, KURIANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM
2. BABY K.V., KULATHOLIL HOUSE, KURIANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM
3. JOHN M. SEBASTIAN MANIKYAMKUZHIL, KURIANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM
4. SOMATHAN K.P., KOTTARAMTHARAPPIL, KURIANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM
5. SEBASTIAN K.C., KALANAL, KURIANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM
6. K.N.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR KURUMUTTATHU, KURIANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) SRI.M.R.SABU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :- ------------------------------
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686001
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL & DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
3. KURIANAD KSHEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGAM NO.K-69 (D) APCOS, KURIANAD P.O, PIN - 686636 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
WA.No. 2246 of 2015 () IN WP(C).29988/2015
4. THE RETURNING OFFICER (DIARY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KADUTHURUTHY) SAHAKARANA SANGAM NO.K-69 (D), APCOS, KURIANAD P.O PIN - 686636
5. KERALA STATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION THIRUVANATHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1410-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
Dated this the 14th day of October 2015
J U D G M E N T
Ashok Bhushan, CJ.
Heard.
2.
This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 7.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.29988 of 2015, by which, the petitioners' prayer for interim relief to stay the operation of Ext.P15 was rejected. Ext.P15 is the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination of the petitioners.
3.
The petitioners/appellants were members of the Cooperative Society, which was presided by the State in exercise of power under Sec.32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. There has been several allegations with regard to supersession and against the last supersession directed by the Government, an appeal was filed by the petitioners, which was pending. In the mean time, Election Commission issued a notification for holding election on 15.10.2015. The last date for submission of nomination was fixed on 28.9.2015 and 29.9.2015 is
-: 2 :- the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers. The petitioners' appeal was rejected and an order rejecting the appeal was sent to the petitioners by ordinary post. Before the order could reach the petitioners, their nomination was rejected on 29.9.2015 by the Returning Officer, who was made aware of the order rejecting the appeal.
4.
The petitioners in the writ petition prayed for stay of Ext.P15. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners elaborately, by a detailed order, has refused to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer. The learned Single Judge also did not grant any order staying Ext.P15.
5.
Sri.P.Ravindran, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the order rejecting the appeal filed by the appellants has not been communicated, which fact was found by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the rejection of the nomination was erroneous. It is submitted that in so far as the communication of the order, the learned Single Judge had accepted the case of the petitioners that the same was communicated only on 1.10.2015. It is further submitted that the petitioners had a very strong case against Ext.P15 order.
-: 3 :- 6.
After having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that no error was committed by the learned Single Judge in exercising his discretion in not staying Ext.P15. Even though the order rejecting the appeal was not communicated to the petitioners, the Returning Officer being aware of passing of the said order did not commit any error in rejecting the nomination. It is also not disputed that the order rejecting the appeal was communicated by post to the petitioners on the date when the nomination was rejected. The learned Single Judge has also given reason to refuse the interim prayer to stay Ext.P15. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to grant interim relief, which warrants interference by the appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE J UDGE Jvt/16.10.2015