Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19453
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
SANTHOSH V – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 21955/2024
A party must be granted an opportunity to respond to a show cause notice before any disqualification is finalized.
Headnote:
Membership - Dairy Society - Ext.P2 bye-law, Ext.P3 Circular - The court ruled that the petitioner has the right to respond to a show cause notice regarding membership status, emphasizing due process before disqualification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was a dairy farmer and President of a co-operative society, facing a notice alleging loss of membership for not supplying sufficient milk as per recent eligibility criteria changes, contested by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice was a show cause, allowing the petitioner to advance defenses and mandating an opportunity to be heard, reinforcing procedural fairness over immediate disqualification.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can challenge the show cause notice concerning his membership status without being afforded an opportunity to respond.
Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice allows a party to respond; judicial intervention is premature until due process is afforded.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondents to provide a hearing opportunity to the petitioner.
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2024 The petitioner is a Dairy Farmer and the President of the Edayazham Ksheerolpadaka Co-operative Society. The Society is governed by the provisions of Ext.P2 bye-law. The petitioner obtained membership in the Society in the year 2016 and thereafter, he has been regularly supplying milk to the Society. In the year 2017, the petitioner was elected to the Board of Directors of the Society. On 26.05.2022, the petitioner was unanimously elected as the President of the Society and has been continuing in the post till date.
2.As per the terms of Ext.P2 bye-law, those Dairy Farmers who have supplied milk for 180 days or 500 liters in the preceding year can only get active membership of the Society. In 2023, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 Circular whereby the eligibility criteria for getting active membership of the Milk Societies in the State has been changed. As per Ext.P3, those farmers who have supplied milk of 500 liters within 180 days alone are eligible for active membership.
Anyhow, Ext.P2 bye-law of the Society is not so far amended in line with Ext.P3 Circular.
3. Based on the false complaint of the 5 th respondent, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 notice stating that since the petitioner has not supplied requisite quantity of milk, the petitioner lost his membership of the Society. Upon receiving Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 explanation detailing the entire facts and specifically contended that he has fulfilled all the requirements mandated by Ext.P2 bye-law as well as the Circulars issued by the 2nd respondent from time to time. Despite the receipt of Ext.P5 explanation, respondents 2 and 3 have not cared to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his contentions. The petitioner apprehends that respondents 2 and 3 will take coercive action against the petitioner without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, contends the Counsel for the petitioner.
4.I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 4th respondent. In view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition, notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with.
5.It is evident from the pleadings that Ext.P4, which is impugned in the writ petition is only a show cause notice to the petitioner stating that since the petitioner has not supplied requisite quantity of milk, the petitioner lost his membership in the Society and why the petitioner should not be disqualified from continuing as member.
6.The Apex Court has consistently held that a writ petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice. In this case, Ext.P4 is in the nature of show cause. The petitioner can advance all the grounds against the proposal contained in Ext.P4 in reply. In such circumstances, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere in the matter at this stage.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to extend one more opportunity to the petitioner for hearing and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 within a period of one month.
