A fresh suspension cannot occur without prior approval after the maximum period exceeds; it contravenes established legal limits.

1. This Writ Petition is a virtual sequel to WP(C) No.29433/2022, earlier filed by the petitioner; and which ended in Ext.P3 judgment.

2. The afore said Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner when he was placed under suspension for a period exceeding one year by the respondent Society; and he assailed it, asserting that it is in violation of R.198(6) of the Kerala Co - operative Rules ('KCS Rules' for short).

3. Finding favour with the petitioner's contentions, Ext.P3 judgment was delivered, holding that the action of the Society in continuing the petitioner under suspension for a period of one year continuously, without the prior permission from the Statutory Authority, was in error. It was also noticed in the said judgment that, though the Society had applied for such a permission from the jurisdictional Statutory Authority, it was granted only subsequent to one year having elapsed from the date of initial suspension of the petitioner; and it was hence declared that, as per R.198(6) of the “KCS Rules”, he could no longer be subjected to the continued rigour of suspension. While parting, this Court had also granted permission to the Society to initiate any action as may be necessary against the petitioner, however, as per law.

4. Presumably, under the sanction of the afore liberty, the Society has now issued Ext.P4 order, placing the petitioner again under suspension; and he contends that this is in egregious violation of the holdings in Ext.P3 judgment and contrary to the mandate of R.198(6) of the “KCS Rules”.

5. I have heard Sri. B. S. Swathi Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Amrutha Vidyadharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Society; Smt. Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents; and Sri. Jacob P. Alex, Amicus Curiae.

6. Noticing the importance of the question raised in this case, I had requested Sri. Jacob P. Alex - learned counsel of this Court, to assist me as an 'Amicus Curiae' and he has filed a detailed Note, putting forth his opinion in the manner.

7. The essential question in this case is whether the Society, could have suspended the petitioner afresh, after Ext.P3 judgment had been delivered; and interestingly, both the rival parties edificed their contentions on R.198(6) of the “KCS Rules”.

8. While B. S. Swathi Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, asserts that, going by the afore Rule, no fresh order of suspension could have been issued by the Society, since it would transgress the one year period mentioned therein; Smt. Amrutha Vidyadharan - learned counsel for the Society, argued to the contrary, explaining that the afore Rule only prohibits the Society from continuing a person under suspension for one year period, but not that they cannot issue a fresh order of suspension after that limit.

9. Pertinently, the specific contention of Smt. Amrutha Vidyadharan was to the effect that, even though her client had obtained permission from the statutory Authority to continue the suspension of the petitioner beyond one year, this Court had found against them in Ext.P2 for no fault of theirs, but solely because said Authority had granted such permission beyond that period, though effective from a retrospective date. She pointed out from Ext.P2, that this Court had only concluded that the grant of permission by the Authority from a retrospective date was without legal force; and that it is solely in such circumstances that the suspension of the petitioner was quashed. She thus vehemently argued that