IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 28849 of 2007(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. P.GOPALAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O PAZHANI SWAMY CHETTIAR, P.O.VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. P.VENKITACHALAM, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O PAZHANI CHETTIAR, VANIYAMKULAM ANGADI, P.O.VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), OTTAPPALAM. 2. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., OTTAPPALAM. *3. THE OTTAPALAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., NO. F. 1647, OTTAPALAM – 679 101. REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. *ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/11/2007 IN IA NO. 15567/2007. R3 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 28849/2007 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 27/07/2007 BY THE SALE OFFICER. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE -DO- DT. 27/07/2007 OF -DO- EXT.P3. COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 26/07/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER NO.1. EXT.P4. -DO- BY THE P2. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 21/08/2007 BY THE P1. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 22/08/2007 BY THE P2. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 12/09/2007 BY THE R2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R3A. COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 26/08/2005 ISSUED BY THE P1, THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. EXT.R3B. COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT. 28/2/2006. EXT.R3C. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 28/3/2006 IN WPC NO. 7101/2006. EXT.R3D. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 15124/2007 DT. 24/5/2007. True copy tga Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.28849 of 2007 ================================== Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioners contend that they were not given the copy of arbitration awards passed against them that has led to the impugned sale, which is now pending confirmation. Third party auction purchaser has intervened after paying the entire amounts due in terms of the statutory auction. 2. The crux of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, when the matter is heard today, is that Rule 68 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules, 1969 mandates communication of the gist of the award and violation of that is illegal. Reference in support of this proposition was made by the WPC28849/2007 -:2:- decision of this Court in Paul v. Assistant Registrar (1998 (2) KLT 449). It is also urged that the petitioners could avail an opportunity of settling the transaction in terms of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, Rules, Circulars and Notifications therein. 3. I may straightaway notice that the creditor bank was not made a party to this writ petition and they were impleaded thereafter on their request, which request was also opposed by the writ petitioners. The Bank has placed copies of judgments, Exts.R3(c) and (d), which show, among other things, that the portion of the property, which was pledged, was involved in a land acquisition proceedings and the first petitioner moved this Court and directions were issued by this Court regarding appropriation of WPC28849/2007 -:3:- the compensation amounts. Thereafter, he again moved this Court and obtained Ext.R3(d) judgment conceding that he may be permitted to pay off the entire amounts in instalments. Accordingly, he was granted certain facilities to pay off the amounts in instalments. During all the aforesaid proceedings, contention was raised regarding the sustainability of the award. The finality of the proceedings is one of the hallmarks expected of judicial exercise. This principle, founded on public policy, stated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, particulary in Explanation 4 to Section 11, is a principle that has found recognition, also in writ jurisdiction. After having submitted before this Court on 24-5-2007 that the petitioners may be permitted to pay off the entire amounts in instalments, Ext.R3 WPC28849/2007 -:4:- (d) judgment was passed. They stand concluded by Exts.R3(c) and (d) judgments. For the aforesaid reasons, the contention of the petitioners were not served with the copy of the arbitration award or its gist does not survive for consideration and it is not an illegality calling for exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.