IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 34269 of 2007(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ T.C.RAJESWARI, W/O M.A.PRABHAKARAN, 18, KRISHNAARPAN, POONA LINK ROAD, NEAR KARTAMANAVALI POST OFFICE, KALYAN(EAST), MAHARASHTRA. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KARUVILLASERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.4185, P.O.KARUVILLASSERY, MALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, MUKUNDAPURAM, IRINJALAKUDA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV SRI.N.J.PRINCE R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.34269 of 2007 ================================== Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner has certain disputes with the first respondent referable to certain banking transactions that her late father had with the first respondent. Petitioner also disputes some of the entries in the books of accounts maintained by the first respondent regarding the transactions of her late father. Among other things, she alleges that some of the debits and credits have not been appropriately entered and still further that the account statement reflects that there were transactions even after the death of the petitioner's father. These are issues that can be easily resolved by the appropriate statutory officers. Since the petitioner is a heir of a deceased member of the first respondent, it may be a case for arbitration. But the materials on WPC34269/2007 -:2:- record tend to show that even without an arbitration, having regard to the scope of the supervisory authority under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, it is appropriate that the Assistant Registrar looks into the disputes of the petitioner and the first respondent and if necessary makes a report to the officer exercising the powers of the Registrar in relation to the first respondent. The second respondent is accordingly directed to consider the issues regarding the complaint of the petitioner as against the first respondent and take appropriate decision after hearing the parties and in the event of the first respondent not accepting the decision of the Assistant Registrar, the second respondent shall forward his views to the officer exercising the powers of the Registrar in relation to the first respondent, who shall, in turn, deal with it appropriately, in accordance with law. Let the needful be done within a period of three months WPC34269/2007 -:3:- from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and a copy of this writ petition and the pleadings presented here. Petitioner and the first respondent will be given an opportunity of hearing before a final decision is taken, as directed above. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl. 1-4-2008