IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17055 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GOPINATHAN NAIR.K.S,S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, AGED 66 YEARS,R/AT AKKATTU HOUSE,PANAMATTOM.P.O, KOORALI,PONKUNNAM,ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE GOVT:SECRETARY,CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR,CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL),KOTTAYAM. 4. ELAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, R/BY ITS SECRETARY,KOORALI.P.O,PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb WP(C).No. 17055 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1:- COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S BANK IDENTITY CARD ALONG WITH ELECTORAL IDENTITY CARD P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY MEMBER NO.2896 MR.JOSE.M.T DATED 5.6.2006 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY MEMBER NO.2896 MR.JOSE.M.T DATED 25.7.2006 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.20887/2006 P5:- COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN COMPLIANCE OF EXT.P4 JUDGMENT P6:- COPY OF THE MASS MEMORANDUM DATED 9.10.2007 PREFERRED BY 70 AND ODD NUMBERS OF MEMBERS P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION REQUESTING URGENT AND NECESSARY STEPS FOR A SPEEDY CONDUCT OF ELECTION IN THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK DATED 2.3.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 17055 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 1st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance projected by the petitioner is against the callous inaction on the part of the concerned respondents in causing the election to be conducted to the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent Co-operative Bank for the past 13 years. It is specifically contended that the last election to the Board was conducted on 05.09.1997 and thereafter the management of the Bank came to be vested with the Administrator w.e.f. 05.09.1998 and the running of the Bank through the Administrator continuously is contrary to the mandate under Section 32 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act and the law declared by this Court in Joint Registrar Vs. Gopalan (1993 (2) KLT 433) 2. No counter affidavit has been filed in the matter. However, the learned Government Pleader seeks to adopt the counter affidavit filed in W.P(C) 9491 of 2010 in the present Writ Petition as well and submits that a memo has been filed in this regard, though it does not form part of the record, which stands confirmed by the Registry as well. W.P. (C) No. 17055 of 2010 2 3. The contents of the counter affidavit stated as filed in the connected case were read out by the learned Government Pleader. In substance, it is stated that no interference is warranted in the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, since, pursuant to the direction contained in Ext. P4 judgment in W.P. (C) No.20887 of 2006 (filed by one Mr. Jose), the matter was considered by the Joint Registrar, who passed Ext. P5 order declining the relief sough for, which has not been chosen to be challenged by the said Writ Petitioner (Mr. Jose). 4. This Court fails to understood as to how, the lapses, if any, on part of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 20887 of 2006, forming the subject matter of Ext. P4 judgment, can be raised as a ground to decline the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. Going by Ext. P5 order passed by the Joint Registrar, the reason stated therein is that, the financial position of the concerned respondent is deplorably poor and that it is for the best interest of all concerned that the Administrator is being permitted to be continued. However, there is no answer with regard to the statutory prescription and the law declared by this Court in Joint Registrar Vs. Gopalan (1993 (2) KLT 4330 as to the rights and liberties of the Administrator to continue in office of the 4th respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though the petitioner has preferred Ext. P7 representation before the first W.P. (C) No. 17055 of 2010 3 respondent, the same has also been kept under cold storage and hence seeks for immediate interference. 6. Taking note of the fact that the management of the Bank is being continued by the Administrator holding office for more than 13 years contrary to clear statutory provisions and the binding judicial precedent, it is highly necessary that the matter is looked into by the first respondent, causing necessary remedial measures and taking appropriate proceedings against the parties concerned for the lapses, violation of the relevant provisions of law and the loss caused, of any. 7. In the said circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext. P7 representation preferred by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of the above observations, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing before passing final orders as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd