IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4453 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KURIAS N.CHACKO,MEMBER NO.496,THE EXPRESS GROUP EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NO.E 720, KALOOR,KOCHI. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR(GENERAL) OFCO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXPRESS GROUP EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.NO.3.720,KALOOR KOCHI,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. BALAKRISHNA PANICKER, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE EXPRESS GROUP EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.NO.E.720,KALOOR, KOCHI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4453 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a member of the second respondent society. Alleging that the third respondent who is a member of the managing committee of the second respondent society is in default to the second respondent society and is therefore disqualified to be a member of the managing committee of that society, the petitioner has filed Ext.P1 petition before the first respondent for an order disqualifying the third respondent. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though Ext.P1 petition was submitted in August, 2010 and nearly 5 months have passed thereafter, till date, the first respondent has not taken any action on the said petition. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- i) declare that the 3rd respondent is disqualified from being elected to the managing committee of the 2nd respondent and also continue in the committee as per Rule 44 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies rules since he is in default to the 2nd respondent on the date of nomination and even now. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to issue orders disqualifying the 3rd respondent from being a member of the managing committee of the 2nd respondent and remove him from the W.P.(C) No.4453 of 2011 2 committee forthwith, iii)issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iv)Issue such other writs, orders or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court, and v)Award the costs of this proceeding to the petitioner. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 11.2.2011, the learned Government Pleader was directed to ascertain and submit whether the original of Ext.P1 has been received by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Today when the writ petition came up for further hearing, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent on instructions submitted that the original of Ext.P1 has been forwarded to the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies (General), Ernakulam on 29.9.2010 for enquiry and report and that as and when the report is received from the said officer, the Registrar will consider Ext.P1 and pass orders thereon. In the light of the said submission and having regard to the fact that five months have passed after Ext.P1 petition was filed, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Ernakulam to submit the report W.P.(C) No.4453 of 2011 3 called for by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) on Ext.P1 petition within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before him. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall within one month from the date of receipt of the report from the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, issue notice to respondents 2 and 3, afford them an opportunity of being heard and take an appropriate decision on Ext.P1 complaint. If the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is of the opinion that any clarification is required from the petitioner or that the petitioner should in his opinion be afforded an opportunity of being heard, it will be open to the Registrar of Co- operative Societies to hear the petitioner also before taking a decision in the matter. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.