KUMAR Vs. KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 19th January 1962, the petitioner was appointed as Organizer for the Southern Region, under the respondent, the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha, a Society registered under S.5 of the Travancore - Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 12 of 1955. The Society is governed by Rules and Bye laws accepted by its General Body, a copy of which has been filed as Ext. P. On 10th November 1963, the petitioner was appointed Organizer for Kerala by a resolution, a copy of which has been filed as Ext. P-1. On 10th January 1964, by a communication evidenced by Ext. P-2 the petitioner was asked to state his "reaction" to a resolution of a representative body of Hindi Institutions. The petitioner asked for a clarification by a communication Ext. P-3. Ext. P-4 represents the clarification received. Thereupon the petitioner sent his reply which is evidenced by Ext. P-5 in which he stated that he had no views to offer regarding the resolution referred to in Ext. P-2. Thereafter the petitioner received a communication Ext. P-6, dated 4th May 1964 informing him that at a meeting of the Working Committee held on 3rd May 1964 it had been decided to suspend him on and from 4th May 1964, subject to the result of an enquiry into the charges. Ext. P-7 of the same date is a copy of the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges which is evidenced by Ext. P-8. Thereafter, by Ext. P-9, dated 27th September 1964, the petitioner was removed from service. This O. P. has been filed to quash Ext. P-9. The petitioner's counsel raised the following grounds:-

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by counsel for respondent that the O. P. is not maintainable as the respondent is a private institution against which a writ of certiorari cannot issue. Reliance was placed upon the decision of Velu Pillai, J. in Arumugam v. Kadalundi Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., 1960 KLT 727 to the effect that a writ under Art.226 of the Constitution would not lie against a Cooperative Society formed under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act. The learned Judge followed a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Ramnath Sharma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1959 M. P. 218. The said decision came in for some comment and was restrictively distinguished in a later decision of the same High Court in Dukhooram v. Cooperative Agricultural Association, Kawardha AIR 1961 M. P. 289. For purposes of this case, it is unnecessary to decide whether a writ will lie against a Cooperative Society, as I am satisfied that quite apart from the principle of the above decision, this O. P. is not maintainable.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, reliance was placed on the decision in P. M. Brahmadathan Namboodiripad v. Cochin Devaswom Board 1955 KLT 516 FB, in which it was held that the Devaswom Board would certainly fall within the term "other authority" in Art.12 of the Constitution, as it had power to frame rules which had the force of law. The decision is unhelpful to the petitioner, as the statutory power to frame rules having the force of law, which could be exercised by the Devaswom Board in that case, and also the Cooperative Society in AIR 1961 M. P. 289, is unavailable to the respondent in the present case. For the same reason, the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and others AIR 1962 SC 1110 is also distinguishable.