IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27426 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. RAJAN BABU V.S. ,NANDANAM,CHEMBUR, MUNDAKKAL P.O. 2. SREEKANTAN NAIR.S, PANCHAJANYAM, CHEMBUR, MUNDAKKAL P.O. 3. SUJATHAN.S, S.N.SADANAM, VALAKKAD, ELAMPA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR(G)OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 27426 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by three members of the Managing Committee of the Chembur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd No. T 202, challenging the proceedings for disqualifying petitioners from being members of the Managing Committee of the society, on the ground that surcharge has been imposed on the petitioners under Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The contention of the petitioners is that against the order under Section 68, the petitioners have filed an appeal under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act before the Government of Kerala. Petitioners have moved a stay petition also. Therefore, before either the stay petition or the appeal is heard on merits, it is unjust to disqualify the petitioners on the basis of the order under Section 68 is their submission. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground that the same is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 83. According to the petitioners, the appeal was filed W.P(C) No. 27426 of 2009 -2- within time and there was no delay whatsoever. In the above circumstances, I directed the Government Pleader to ascertain as to when exactly Ext.P5 order was communicated to the petitioner and the date on which the petitioners have filed the appeal before the Government. Today the learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P5 order dated 6.7.2009 was despatched to the petitioners on 20.8.2009 and the petitioners have filed the appeal on 9.9.2009. If that be so, the order rejecting the petitioners appeal as time barred is clearly wrong. Ext.P9 is the order so passed by the Government. Therefore that order is liable to be quashed. I do so. The 2nd respondent is directed to restore the appeal to file and pass orders on the same on merits, as expeditiously as possible. Till orders are thus passed on the appeal, further proceedings for disqualification of the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs