IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18837 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. THE ANICKADU REGIONAL FARMER'S SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3867, ANICKAD P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE PRESIDENT, ANICKADU REGIONAL FARMER'S SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3867, ANICKAD P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT . BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. K.D.DEVASIA, KORAKUNNEL HOUSE, ARUVIKUZHI P.O., ANICKADU VILLAGE, ANICKADU KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18837 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T First petitioner is a Co-operative Bank and the second petitioner is its President. 2. It is alleged that the first respondent, a member of the 1st petitioner Bank filed Ext.P1 before the 2nd respondent, which was numbered as ARC 65/07 challenging certain appointments made by the first petitioner. According to the petitioner, they had filed Ext.P2 objection justifying the appointments. It is stated that on 10/6/2009, though the matter was posted before the Arbitrator, the case was not called, but however, later on petitioners came to know that an award has been passed on 10/6/2009, disposing of ARC itself allowing the same. Coming to know of the above, as by virtue of the award, the appointments made by the petitioner were invalidated, it filed Ext.P3 application requesting the 2nd respondent to suspend the operation of the award and another application was made for issuing copy of the award in order to pursue the matter before the Tribunal. 3. Petitioners complaint is that order on Ext.P3 has not WPC 18837/09 :2 : been passed so far and copy of the award also has not been issued. Petitioner submits that this stalemate is creating several administrative difficulties to the Bank in as much as the persons whose appointments have been interfered with are continuing and their salaries will also have to be paid. 4. If as stated by the petitioners, award has been rendered by the Arbitrator on 10/6/09, petitioners are entitled to pursue their remedies against the said award. Therefore, it is essential that copy should be issued to them pursuant to the applications made by them. Now that there is delay caused in issuing copies, it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent should consider Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioner for keeping in abeyance the operation of the said awards. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. (1) That within 4 weeks from today, the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioners with notice to the 1st respondent and orders thereon shall be passed. (2) It is directed that in the meanwhile, further WPC 18837/09 :3 : proceedings pursuant to the award passed on 10/6/2009 in ARC 65/07 shall be kept in abeyance. (3) Petitioners shall immediately produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp