Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 28821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J
MINI M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 36489 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ,SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY,SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON,KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
For the Respondents: SMT. DEEPA V (GP),SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
Court directs time-bound disposal of statutory appeal against service termination in cooperative society, ensuring hearing.
Headnote:The petitioner, secretary of a cooperative society under termination orders, challenged suspension and dismissal orders via writ petition, seeking quashing, declaration of exoneration, and mandamus for appeal consideration. No specific statutes quoted; court noted pending statutory appeal. Court found direction for expeditious disposal appropriate without quashing orders. Issue framed as need for appellate authority to consider appeal (Ext.P7). Ratio: Expeditious disposal with notice and hearing ensures natural justice, satisfying petitioner's limited submission for time-bound decision. Writ petition disposed directing appellate authority to consider and dispose appeal within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reliefs sought: quash suspension/dismissal, mandamus for appeal. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner satisfied with direction for time-bound appeal disposal. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. direct appellate authority to dispose appeal within two months with hearing. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P1 and P6 as unjust, illegal, and unsustainable;
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 12th respondent to consider Ext.P7 appeal and pass an order within a time frame after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard in furtherance of the said appeal;
iii. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to be suspended and dismissed from service for reasons stated in Exts. P1 and P6 and she is entitled to be exonerated from all charges;
2. When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has filed Ext.P7 statutory appeal before the appellate authority. Ext. P7 is not considered by the authority so far.
3. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied with an order, directing the 12th respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 appeal within a time frame.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced, I am of the view that a direction can be issued to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment, after giving notice and hearing the petitioner and the other affected parties.
