Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48586
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P, J
PADMAKSHAN T. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32820 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN, SHRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR, SMT.POOJA PANKAJ
For the Respondents: SHRI.SHYAM KUMAR S.U., SHRI.UMESH KUMAR A.K., SMT.RESHMI THOMAS, GP
The appellate authority erred in determining the limitation period from the order date instead of the service date, thereby dismissing the appeal incorrectly.
Headnote:This writ petition challenges Ext.P10 order rejecting the appeal under Section 83(1)(e) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 on grounds of limitation and review denial. Petitioners argue appeal was filed timely based on service dates. Court finds the appeal within time, quashing Ext.P10 and P12, instructing reconsideration of the appeal.
Result: The writ petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to appeal rejection based on limitation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. authority's error in calculating appeal timeline. (Para 4) |
| 3. writ petition allowed with directive for appeal reconsideration. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P10 order rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 83 (1)(e) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (in short ‘the Act’) on the ground that it is barred by limitation and Ext.P12 order dismissing an application seeking review of Ext.P10 order.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners suffered an order imposing a surcharge under Section 68 (2) of the Act . It is submitted that the order is dated 18.01.2024 and was served on the petitioners only on 04.02.2024. It is submitted that the postal cover also shows that the order was dispatched only on 30.01.2024. It is not disputed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 83 (1)(e) of the Act is 60 days and Ext.P8 appeal was filed on 26.03.2024. It is submitted that after taking the date of the order as the date from which the limitation would begin to run, the appellate authority (Government) took the view that the appeal filed on 26.03.2024 was time barred.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that the appellate authority could not have determined the period of limitation from the date of the impugned order, when it is admitted that the order was served only on 04.02.2024. Since Ext.P8 appeal was filed on 26.03.2024, the appeal was clearly within time and could not have been dismissed on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P10 and P12 orders are quashed. It is declared that Ext.P8 appeal filed on 26.03.2024 was filed within time. The appellate authority is, therefore, directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 appeal, in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners after treating the said appeal as one filed in time. The interim order dated 21.10.2025 will continue for a period of six weeks to enable the petitioners to seek appropriate interim orders from the appellate authority.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
