IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16618 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PODIKUNJU MUSALIAR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN M.ABDUL AZEEZ,CHENDANATHOPPE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR,CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK(SCB) REP BY ITS MANAGER DIRECTOR, CO BANK TOWERS,THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 16618 OF 2010 B ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st May, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a public trust. The trust is represented herein by its chairman. The trust is conducting various professional educational institutions. At present, the petitioner is conducting a dental college, a medical college and a nursing college. According to the petitioner, all the institutions are running well. The trust has approached the third respondent for a loan of Rs.100 crores. According to the petitioner, due to political interference the third respondent did not sanction the loan, though the petitioner was eligible to be granted the loan that was sought for. The petitioner has filed a complaint before the respondent and also the concerned Minister complaining against the unfair and unilateral decision of the third respondent. However, no orders have been passed thereon till date. From the documents produced, it appears that complaints are pending before the vigilance also. 2. The petitioner has set out his grievances in a representation, which is pending before the first respondent. However, it is complained that no orders have been passed thereon WPC 16618/2010 2 till date. The petitioner therefore seeks appropriate directions for an expeditious disposal of Ext.P2. 3. I have heard Mr. Nagaraj Narayanan who appears for the third respondent as well as the learned senior Govt. Pleader. 4. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, I feel that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously. 5. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner set out in Ext.P2 representation in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to produce necessary documents in support of the contentions raised therein and also after affording an opportunity of being heard. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 16618/2010 3