G PAUL AVERTHAN Vs. SANKARAN BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of T.K. Joseph, J., disposing of three writ petitions (O.P. Nos. 46, 47 and 48 of 1955) preferred by three different persona against the same respondents for the same reliefs. The 4th respondent in the above three Writ Petitions is the appellant herein and he has impleaded the petitioners in the Writ Petitions as respondents 1, 2 & 3 in this appeal. Though the three Writ Petitions had been disposed of by one judgment, there is in the eye of law a judgment in each Writ Petition capable of forming the basis of a separate appeal. One appeal against the decision in three cases is not maintainable. This appeal is therefore treated as an appeal against the decision in O.P. No. 46 of 1955 only, since the Ist respondent is the petitioner in that O.P.; and the names of respondents 2 and 3 will stand removed from the array of parties. As this defect in the institution of this appeal was not pointed out by the respondents they are not awarded costs in this proceeding.

(2.) The question in this appeal is whether the Government exercising revisional powers under the Cooperative Societies Act, has the power to review its own decision.

(3.) A suit was instituted by the Avanakuzhi Neithuvyavasaya Cooperative Society No. 2387 against eight defendants, of whom the first was its former Secretary, the second the then President and Treasurer & Nos. 3 to 8 members of the committee of management, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,609-8-8 said to have been misappropriated by them. The suit was decreed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies primarily against defendants 1 & 2 and secondarily against the other defendants to be proceeded against if the amount is found irrecoverable from defendants 1 and 2. The 2nd defendant preferred an application for revision before the Government and the Government dismissed the same on 22nd June 1953. But on an application, dated 15th July 1953 by the 2nd defendant to review the same, the Government modified its prior decision by an order, dated 25th March 1955 and held all the defendants to be jointly and severally liable for the suit claim. Writ Petition No. 46 of 1955 was filed by the 7th defendant challenging the jurisdiction of the Government to review its former decision, and the learned Single Judge held: