B.LATHA Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be a member of the fourth respondent Society and has been before the Joint Registrar of Co -operative Societies, the second respondent and this Court in an attempt to expose the illegalities perpetrated by the Managing Committee of the Society. The allegations as such or the various proceedings need not be referred to for disposal of the above writ petition, which seeks implementation of the subsequent orders passed by the second respondent. Suffice it to say that the petitioner had filed representation before the Registrar of Co -operative Societies and this Court by Ext.P3 directed consideration of the same.

(2.) IN compliance of Ext.P3 judgment, Ext.P4 order was passed by the Registrar of Co -operative Societies wherein the irregularities highlighted by the petitioner were taken note of and directions were issued to the Joint Registrar to take action as per the provisions of the Kerala Co -operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. Ext.P5 was issued by the Joint Registrar wherein again serious irregularities were noticed, which also included the illegal appointment of ten persons; flouting the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In fact, it is admitted by both parties that separate proceedings were initiated by the petitioner against the said illegal appointments and that the same culminated in the termination of the ten employees, who are named in Ext.P5 order.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the same would be applicable only with respect to the persons, who have challenged their termination before the Arbitration Court. Subsequently, the petitioner was again before this Court seeking implementation of Ext.P5 order and consideration of Ext.P6 representation, which was also allowed by Ext.P7 judgment. The contempt proceedings filed by the petitioner for non -compliance of Ext.P7 was closed on the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the directions in the judgment have been complied with. Such compliance is evident from Ext.P9 order passed by the Additional Registrar, which however, remains unimplemented, is the contention of the petitioner.