IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16603 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.S.SUBHASH, KANJIRAKATTU HOUSE, THIDANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (VIGILANCE), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE THIDANADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3990, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIDANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. M.K.THANKAPPAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, MANJAPPALLIL HOUSE, KALAKETTY P.O., CHERANI. R1, R2 BY SR. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16603 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Having regard to the nature of the order being issued hereunder, notice to respondents 3 and 4 dispensed with, preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. Petitioner is a member of the third respondent society. He states that the 4th respondent obtained membership in that society though he was incompetent and disqualified to become such a member. Petitioner filed complaint before the first respondent. The second respondent is stated to have inquired into the matter. Ext.P5 shows that the second respondent had been collecting evidence even in July, 2007. The only issue that may arise is as to whether the 4th respondent was a member of yet another service Co-operative Bank, viz., Ayyappan Kovil WPC.16603/08 Page numbers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and whether the dual membership, if any, was accorded after obtaining sanction. To determine such an issue, it does not require that the proceedings are dragged on any further. In the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing anything on merits, this writ petition is disposed of directing that respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure that proceedings, in relation to which Ext.P5 was issued, shall be concluded and a final decision taken on Ext.P4 after hearing the necessary parties, including the 4th respondent, within a period of one month, without fail. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.5/6.