Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 21.7.2004 in W.P.(C) 20924/2004. The appellant is the second respondent in the writ petition which was filed by the first respondent herein. Second respondent herein is the first respondent in the writ petition.

2. The first respondent (petitioner in the writ petition) is a member of the appellant-Kanjoor Ksheera Ulpadaka Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society). The first respondent and 63 other members of the Society submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 26.6.2004 to the President/Secretary of the Society requiring them to convene a special general body meeting of the Society. Copy of Ext.P3 representation was sent to the second respondent (Deputy Director of Dairy Development) also. Alleging that no action was being taken on Ext.P3, the first respondent filed the writ petition praying for a direction to the Deputy Director of Dairy Development to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 representation by directing the Society to convene an extraordinary general body meeting of the Society. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage and without issuing notice to the Society. The learned Single Judge observed that prima facie the persons who submitted Ext.P3 had a legal right to have the extraordinary general body meeting convened. The learned Single Judge directed the Deputy Director of Dairy Development in take effective steps after verifying Ext.P3 for initiating steps for convening an extraordinary general body meeting of the Society was far as possible, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Society has filed this writ appeal.

3. The writ appeal is admitted. We have heard Mr. Jacob Murikan on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Easwaran who accepted notice for the first respondent and the learned government Pleader who accepted notice for the second respondent.

4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials placed on record, we are of the view that the prayer in the writ petition was misconceived and could not have been allowed. The prayer in the writ petition was for a direction in the Deputy Director of Dairy Development to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 representation. Ext.P3 is not a representation submitted to the Deputy Director of Dairy Development. It is a representation submitted to the President/Secretary of the Society. It is true that a copy of Ext.P3 was marked to the Deputy Director of Dairy Development. Merely because a copy of the representation was marked to the Deputy Director of Dairy Development it cannot be treated as a representation submitted to the Deputy Director of Dairy Development and he is not bound to act upon such representation. Hence the writ petitioner was not entitled to the relief of compelling the Deputy Director of Dairy Development to consider and dispose of Ext.P3. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition was liable to be rejected. On this ground alone the writ appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. In the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has made an observation that prima facie the persons who submitted Ext.P3 are entitled to have an extraordinary general body meeting of the Society convened. The learned Judge has also directed the Deputy Director of Dairy Development to take effective steps for initiating steps for convening an extraordinary general body meeting of the Society within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The above mentioned observation and direction could not have been made by the learned Single Judge without issuing notice to the Society and giving them an opportunity of being heard, because the effect of the judgment of the learned Single Judge is that the Court has held that the persons who submitted Ext.P3 were entitled to have the extraordinary meeting of the general body con