1.O.P. No. 30031 of 2002

The petitioner in this Original Petition is the President of the Imury (East) Ksheerolpadaka Co-operative Society Ltd. No.E.68(D). The election to the Managing Committee of the said Society was held on 7.9.2002 and the new Committee under the Presidentship of the petitioner assumed charge on 12.9.2002. This Original Petition is filed by him challenging Ext.P3 order of the Government allowing the appeal filed by the members of the previous Managing Committee against the order of supersession of that Committee under S.32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The brief facts of the case are the following:

2. The previous Managing Committee assumed charge on 19.10.2000. That Committee was superseded by order dated 28.9.2001 by the 2nd respondent, Deputy Director of Dairy Development. The then Managing Committee members challenged the said order by filing O.P. No. 29809/2001. The said Original Petition was disposed of by judgment dated 15.1.2002 issuing the following direction:

"Therefore, I dispose of the Original Petition making it clear that if an appeal is received by the Government within a period of one month from today, the same will be entertained as having been filed in time and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the appeal, with notice to the petitioners".

In obedience to the said direction, the members of the Committee filed appeal on 6.2.2002. It was heard on 15.5.2002. In the meantime, the Administrator took steps to hold fresh election and the election was notified on 2.8.2002. Polling was held on 7.9.2002 and the newly elected Committee under the Presidentship of the petitioner assumed charge on 12.9.2002. While so, the Government issued Ext.P3 order dated 5.10.2002 setting aside the order of supersession. The previous Committee's term will expire only on 19.5.2005. Therefore, they staked their claim to assume charge.

3. This Original Petition was filed by the President of the new Committee challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Government allowing the appeal filed by the members of the previous Committee and seeking consequential reliefs. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 mainly on the following grounds:

(i) The appeal filed by the previous Managing Committee against the order superseding them was filed beyond the time limit of 60 days prescribed under the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the Government should not have entertained it.

(ii) The next ground urged was that there was a delay of more than five months between the date of hearing and the date of passing the appellate order by the Government. So, that order is vitiated.

(iii) The third point urged was that in view of the subsequent developments, the Government should not be have granted any relief in the appeal.

4. The 4th respondent who was the President of the previous Managing Committee filed a counter affidavit. According to the 4th respondent, when the fresh election notification was issued, he took all possible steps to prevent the holding of election. But, the 2nd respondent Deputy Director went ahead with the steps to hold the election. The stand of the Government in this Original Petition is that in view of Ext.P3 order the election to the present Managing Committee must automatically go.

5. I heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission that the appeal was not maintainable as the same was filed beyond 60 days, relied on the decision in Kerala Motor Transport W.W.F. Board v. Government of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 608). In support of the second contention regarding the delay in passing the order, the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001 (7) SCC 318). To prop up the third argument that the Government should not have passed any order in view of the subsequent developments, the petitioner relied on the decision in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (AIR 1994 SC 1918).

6. The Managing Committe