SUKUMARAN PILLAI Vs. CO OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala Cooperative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') rejected a revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the arbitrator appointed by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies to dispose of an election case. The Tribunal took the view that the revision is not maintainable, firstly because the revision petition was filed before the expiry of 60 days of the order challenged and secondly because no revision will lie so long as no appeal would lie against the order. Ext. P6 is the order by which the Tribunal rejected the revision petition. Ext. P6 is challenged in this Original Petition filed by the petitioner under S.226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Petitioner was. declared elected to the Board of Directors of Chempazhanthi Service Cooperative Society ( for short 'the Society') in the election held on 27-9-87. One of the defeated candidates (third respondent) filed an election petition under S.69 of the Kerala Coopeative Societies Act, 1969 ( for short 'the Act'). The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, on receipt of the election petition, referred the dispute for disposal to an arbitrator appointed by him. Petitioner expressed want of confidence in the personnel of the arbitrator so appointed. (It was the 2nd respondent who was appointed as arbitrator. Petitioner's objection against him is on the ground that he was a member of the erstwhile Board of Directors against which serious allegations were made by some of the members including the petitioner). On the insistence of the petitioner, the question regarding competence of the 2nd respondent as arbitrator was heard and decided by the 2nd respondent himself as a preliminary issue. By Ext. P4 order, the 2nd respondent overruled the objections. It was Ext. P4 order which the petitioner challenged before the Tribunal by filing a revision petition.

(3.) According to the Tribunal, the finding or order was communicated to the petitioner on 25-11-88 and the revision petition was filed on 9-12-88 which is before the expiry of 60 days from the date of communication and "therefore even assuming that an appeal is maintainable from an order on preliminary issue, no revision will lie since 60 days has not elapsed from the date of communication of the impugned order." The Tribunal did not rest with that. After holding that no appeal will lie against such an order, the Tribunal further held that "if no appeal is maintainable, no revision also will lie under S.84 of the Act."