IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 13546 of 2010(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- AJAYAN PILLAI, AGED 40, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, ANICKANITHU HOUSE, THANNITHODU P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN, SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH, SRI.ROY THOMAS (PATHANAMTHITTA). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THANNITHODU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.Q 364,THANNITHODU P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PATHANAMTHITTA. R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13546 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is one of the members of the Board of Directors of the first respondent bank. He has challenged the action of the managing committee in making appointments at a time when the society is incurring huge amounts as loss. The petitioner has submitted Exts.P3 and P4 complaints to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies voicing his grievances. He complains that no action has been taken thereon till date. At the same time, the bank is proceeding with the selection process. In this writ petition, an interim order was passed on 23.4.2010 granting an interim order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 paper publication issued by the first respondent inviting applications for the posts of Peon, Attender and Night Watchman. Subsequently, as per order dated 21.6.2010, the interim order has been modified permitting the selection process to go on and confining the order of stay to making of appointments wpc No.13546/2010 2 alone. The said order is still in force. 2. In view of the fact that the complaints of the petitioner are pending before the second respondent in Exts.P3 and P4, it is better that the issues are decided in the first instance by the said authority. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit challenging the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Board of Directors to which he was also a party. It is pointed out that in spite of the dissent of the petitioner, the decision being a collective decision of the Board, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the same. In other words, he is only trying to enforce the decision of the minority that he represents. The counter affidavit also justifies the need for making the appointments. However, since the second respondent is in seisin of the matter, I do not propose to consider the sustainability of the rival contentions in this writ petition. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the complaints of the petitioner contained in Exts.P3 and P4 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders wpc No.13546/2010 3 thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity to both the petitioner as well as the first respondent of being heard in the matter. The interim order in this case shall continue until final orders are passed on Exts.P3 and P4 by the second respondent. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ wpc No.13546/2010 4 K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13546 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st of June, 2010 ORDER The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit questioning the locus standi of the petitioner who is a Director of the Society to maintain the writ petition. At any rate, it is pointed out that there are no grounds for stay of the selection process which has already progressed. It is also pointed out that the stay can be confined to appointments alone and that the matter could be heard on an early date. Accordingly, the order of stay granted on 23.4.2010 is modified. The selection process may go on. Appointments pursuant to the selection alone shall remain stayed. The petitioner seeks time to file reply affidavit. Post after a week. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ wpc No.13546/2010 5