9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the first respondent under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. 2. Concurrent findings of fact by the Arbitrator and the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. 3. Appellant's failure to raise the jurisdictional issue before the Tribunal and the first respondent. 4. Discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Distinction between patent and latent lack of jurisdiction. Detailed Analysis: Jurisdiction of the First Respondent under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969: The appellant contended that the first respondent, acting under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, had no jurisdiction to decide the disputes that were essentially industrial in nature. Section 69 outlines the types of disputes that can be referred to the Registrar, including disputes among members, between members and the society, and between the society and its employees. The court analyzed Section 69 and the definition of "dispute" under Section 2(i) of the Act, which includes matters touching the business, constitution, establishment, or management of a society. The court concluded that the disputes in question did touch the business of the society, thus falling within the jurisdiction of the first respondent. Concurrent Findings of Fact by the Arbitrator and the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal: The learned Judge dismissed the original petition, emphasizing that there were no grounds for interference under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The Arbitrator and the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal had both found that the appellant failed to prove by any acceptable evidence that respondents were responsible for the theft of terylene cloth from the society's shop. This concurrent finding of fact was a significant factor in the court's decision to dismiss the appeal. Appellant's Failure to Raise the Jurisdictional Issue Before the Tribunal and the First Respondent: The appellant did not raise the jurisdictional issue before the first respondent or the Tribunal. The court noted that the appellant had invited the decision of the first respondent by filing a plaint and had not raised the jurisdictional issue even during the arguments before the Tribunal. The court cited a series of precedents where it was held that jurisdictional issues should be raised before the concerned authority or tribunal. The court emphasized that the appellant's failure to do so precluded it from raising the issue for the first time in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Discretionary Nature of Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution: The court reiterated that the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary. The court referred to multiple precedents, including P. M. John v. State and Madhava Iyer Venkitasubramonia Iyer v. Catholic Bank of India Ltd., which established that the High Court would generally decline jurisdiction if the petitioner had not raised the jurisdictional issue before the tribunal or authority. The court emphasized that this principle had been consistently applied for nearly two decades. Distinction Between Patent and Latent Lack of Jurisdiction: The appellant argued that there is a distinction between patent and latent lack of jurisdiction. A patent lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record, while a latent lack of jurisdiction requires an examination of facts. The court acknowledged this distinction but found that the appellant had not provided a valid explanation for failing to raise the jurisdictional issue earlier. The court also noted that the lack of jurisdiction in this case was not patent, as the disputes did touch the business of the society under Section 69 of the Act. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had precluded itself from raising the jurisdictional issue by its conduct. The court emphasized the importance of raising jurisdictional issues before the concerned authority or tribunal and reiterated the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court also noted that the lack of jurisdiction was not patent and that the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for its failure to raise the issue earlier.
|
