IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35210 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.M. RAVI, THALIYACHA HOUSE, POST NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN, SMT.SHEEJAKUMARY, AMT.APARNA RAJAN. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. NANMINDA RURAL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.NO.D.1988, NANMINDA P.O., KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, 673 613. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, VANCHI POOR FUND ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.M. MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.35210 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was working as Clerk under the first respondent. Alleging certain misconducts an enquiry was conducted against him and that ultimately resulted in his dismissal from service as per Ext.P1. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors against Ext.P1. The same was dismissed as per Ext.P2. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 an appeal was preferred in terms of section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act before the Arbitration Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Ext.P3 appeal has been preferred as early as on 17.5.2010, no orders have been passed thereon and the appeal is still pending. Considering the fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service, the second respondent should have taken up Ext.P3 appeal and disposed of it expeditiously. It is on being aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P3 appeal that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. WP(C).No.35210/2010 2 3. Evidently, the petitioner was dismissed from service as per Ext.P1. He has unsuccessfully challenged the same. It is a fact that the appeal preferred against Ext.P2 Viz. Ext.P3 dated 17.5.2010 is pending before the second respondent. Considering the fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service, I am of the view that Ext.P3 has to be disposed of expeditiously. In the above circumstances , this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal expeditiously, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in accordance with law. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge