Read order dated 21.01.2009:-
“Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. It filed an arbitration case against the first respondent, its former Secretary. Ext.P1 award was passed on 4.5.1992. The Tribunal set aside that award and remanded the matter on 6.9.1994. the Arbitrator, thereafter, passed Ext.P3 award on 6.7.1995. That award is one passed on a detailed discussion of the evidence and materials. The Tribunal set aside that order as per Ext.P4 on 30.12.1995. This writ petition is filed on 15.1.2009. The petitioner appears to be a financially ailing society in the coir sector. While there is an exceptional delay in the matter, having read Exts.P3 and P4, at this stage, it appears to me that the petitioner, a coir co-operative society attempts to demonstrate a case of total injustice and therefore, its plea for entertaining this writ petition may have to be considered. Yet, it is inappropriate to entertain this matter without giving the first respondent an opportunity to make submissions also touching the question of delay.
Hence, notice before admission to the first respondent. If the first respondent does not show cause against the admission of this writ petition, it will be treated that he has no objection to the entertainment of this writ petition by excusing the delay.
Communicate to the first respondent along with notice”.
2. In fact, this Court while issuing notice as per the aforesaid order, specifically noticed the long delay, from 1995 to 2009, occasioned in challenging Exhibit P4 order of the Tribunal. This Court, hence, did not specifically admit the writ petition and merely directed notice before admission to the 1st respondent and observed that if no objection is filed, to the entertainment of the writ petition, the delay condonation can be considered. The order was also directed to be communicated to the 1st respondent. Notice is seen to have been sent on 25.03.2009 with hearing date on 21.05.2009 along with the copy of the aforesaid order. The same was returned with the endorsement “addressee left India”. After that, the petitioner has not taken any steps, despite the matter being posted before the Registrar (Judicial) for curing defects on 05.10.2012. Even today, the defect has not been cured.
3. The learned counsel Sri.Santhosh Kumar,K.C., who represents the petitioner, submits that the counsel who had filed the writ petition is no more practising and, hence, the aforesaid delay had occurred. However, it is to be noticed that the petitioner, which is a Co-operative Society, has not been diligent in following up the case after the aforesaid order was passed, issuing notice before admission. If the petitioner had been diligent enough, definitely the fact of the Advocate having ceased to practise would have been brought to its notice and then the petitioner ought to have entrusted the case to another Advocate. The learned counsel now representing the petitioner submits that, process has been paid today. However, that is of no consequence.
4. The order of 1995 was challenged in 2009 and this Court had on its initiation itself noticed considered the issue of long delay in challenging the order passed by the appellate authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The grounds stated by the petitioner for condonation of delay is only that the petitioner-Society had become a sick unit and virtually defunct. It is also stated that the file relating to the case was missing. However, nothing is stated as to the specific dates or the period in which there was no employee to manage the affairs of the society. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the reasons stated for the delay caused in filing the writ petition, being thirteen years, to challenge an order of the Tribunal, is not satisfactory. It is also to be noticed that after the filing of the writ petition with a delay of 13 years, the petitioner has not been diligent enough to prosecute the writ petition. Apposite reference can be made to the decision of this Court in Gopinathan Nair v. Kerala Co- operative Tribunal [2014 (4) KLT 647].
For all the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
No costs.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )