IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20316 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE KARANNOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1244, KARANNOOR, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.JACOB, SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), KOZHIKODE, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 004. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), KOZHIKODE, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 004. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).No.20316 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society functioning as a Class-I Special Grade Bank having seven Branches and a Head Office. According to the petitioner, considering the volume of business conducted by the Bank, it was decided to implement computerization in the year, 2000, for which permission was also duly obtained from the Joint Registrar. The earlier Committee had decided to implement the Core Banking System, in view of the volume of business that the Bank was having. For the purpose, the work was entrusted to the HCL, a reputed Company in India and the process of implementation of the Core Banking System is in progress. 2. In the above circumstances, the first respondent ordered an inspection under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and a report has been obtained by him. Pursuant to the above, the first respondent issued Ext.P1 notice for the purpose of conducting a hearing under Section 66(5) of the Act. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Wpc 20316/2010 2 Ext.P2 representation before the first respondent, requesting the said authority to collect other information as well as documents from the HCL Company, with respect to the details of the Core Banking System that is being implemented in the petitioner, Bank. According to the petitioner, the personnel of the HCL Company are experts in the field, who would be in a position to answer any queries that the first respondent may have, which the employees of the petitioner as lay men would not be able to answer. Therefore, the petitioner sought for the disposal of Ext.P2 before the hearing contemplated by Section 66(5) was finalized. According to the petitioner, without passing any orders on Ext.P2, Exts.P4 and P5, notices have been issued by the first respondent proposing to hold a hearing on 30.6.2010, that is today and on 3.7.2010. According to the petitioner, the action of the first respondent in proceeding to conduct the hearing without passing any orders on Ext.P2 is absolutely without any justification. Therefore, the petitioner seeks directions in this regard. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the copies of the documents that are sought for in Ext.P2 are not those that Wpc 20316/2010 3 are in the possession of the first respondent. The documents sought for are either in the possession of the petitioner or with the HCL Company. It is submitted that it is for the petitioner to produce whatever documents are necessary for proving its case, at the time of hearing. 4. I notice from Ext.P2 that the documents listed as item Nos.1 and 2 in paragraph 5 of Ext.P2 are documents available with the petitioner Society itself. As per items 3 and 4, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the Unit Inpsector to conduct necessary enquiry and comparative study relating to the installation of software as well as hardware system in the Bank in connection with the implementation of the Core Banking System. The documents that relate to implementation of the Core Banking System are also documents that would certainly be available with the petitioner. 5. Any documents that are necessary for comparing the rates that are accepted by the petitioner can also be procured by the Society itself, if any such document is necessary to prove the explanation that is offered by the petitioner. Therefore, it is sufficient that the petitioner is given an opportunity to produce all necessary documents for the Wpc 20316/2010 4 purpose of proving its case. I have no doubt that the first respondent would proceed to pass final orders in the matter only after an effective opportunity is given to the petitioner to prove its case by submitting an additional explanation or by producing additional documents as may be deemed fit. 6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to afford an effective opportunity to the petitioner to place and prove the case set out in the explanation that is submitted, with the support of necessary documents, before final orders are passed by the first respondent. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk