IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 27902 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PECHERI RAVI, S/O.CHANNAKKAN, VELIMUKKU PO, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PARAPPANANGADI REGIONAL HOUSING CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETY LTD, REP.BY SECRETARY, PARAPPANANGADI PO, MALAPPURAM,PIN-676 303. ADDL.2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR GENERAL(GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TIRUR P.O. MALAPPURAM – 676 303. ADDL.3. SPECIAL ARBITRATOR/SALE OFFICER PARAPPANAGADI, KNODOTTI AND PONNANI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GROUP ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM – 676 303. (ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.10.2010 IN I.A.NO.12911 OF 2010) BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27902 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the first respondent society on the security of immovable property. When he failed to remit the repayment instalments in time, the first respondent society filed A.R.C.No.2437 of 2006 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Tirur. An award was passed on 15.7.2008 holding the petitioner liable to pay the sum of Rs.2,90,950/- . Even thereafter the petitioner did not pay the amount. The sale officer appointed by the society thereupon issued Ext.P2 notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.3,69,115/- together with future interest at the rate of 13% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2 lakhs from 1.4.2010 within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner was cautioned that in the event of failure to pay the amount within the stipulated time, his properties will be attached and sold. Upon receipt of Ext.P2 notice, the petitioner presented Ext.P4 appeal before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal along with a petition to condone the delay of 775 days in filing the appeal. The appeal and the delay condonation petition were presented on 28.8.2010. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 7.9.2010 seeking the following reliefs:- 27902 of 2010 2 i) To give direction to the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Trivandrum to consider and dispose Ext.P4 appeal in the light of Ext.P3 Circular within in a time frame. ii) To say all further proceedings in ARC 2437/06. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that he is entitled to the benefit of loan waiver in terms of Ext.P3 circular dated 27.2.2008 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and therefore, the award passed by the Arbitrator is liable to be modified. It is on that basis that he seeks a direction to the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal to consider Ext.P4 appeal and pass orders thereon, in the light of Ext.P3 circular within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. Under section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, an appeal lies from an award passed by the arbitrator to the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. The period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal is 60 days from the date of the award. The Tribunal is not empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the memorandum of appeal was returned for the reason that it was belatedly filed and the petitioner has thereafter filed a revision petition 27902 of 2010 3 before the Tribunal. Though section 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act which confers on the Tribunal the power to call for and examine records in which an appeal lies and to pass such orders as it deems fit and no period of limitation is prescribed for exercising the period of revision, a learned single Judge of this Court has in Sarojini Amma v. Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005 (3) KLT 655) held that the revisional jurisdiction ought not to be permitted to be invoked after a fairly long period until good reasons are shown to excuse such delay. It was held that a revision petition should be filed at least within five months from the date of the award. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal belatedly, after the expiry of more than 2 years, I am of the opinion that this Court cannot by a writ in the nature of mandamus direct the Tribunal to pass orders on the revision petition. Apart from the statement made at the Bar, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that he has in fact filed a revision petition before the Tribunal. I, therefore, find no grounds to grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. 4. Further, Ext.P3 circular relied on by the petitioner applies only to loans upto Rs.25,000/-. After Ext.P3 circular was 27902 of 2010 4 issued, the Government have issued G.O.(P) No.100/2009/SC-ST Development Department dated 12.11.2009 incorporating the terms and conditions subject to which loan waiver can be granted. As per the said Government order, persons like the petitioner who belong to the scheduled castes are eligible for loan waiver to the extent of Rs.25,000/- in respect of the loans availed by them, if the repayment period was over by 31.3.2006. In the instant case, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that the repayment period in respect of the loan of Rs.2 lakhs availed by him expired on or before 31.3.2006. In such circumstances, this Court cannot direct that he should be given the benefit of the aforesaid Government order. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.