IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7933 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- WANDOOR CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD. NO.M.674, K.P.A. COMPLEX, KALIKAVU ROAD, P.O.WANDOOR-679 328, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, E.P.MOYINKUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAMACHANDRAN ACHARI, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GP K C SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 7933 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the first respondent to take action against the second respondent for alleged misdeeds committed by him. The Annual General Body Meeting of the petitioner Bank, by Ext.P3 resolution, requested the first respondent to take action against the second respondent. Since no action was taken, the Board of Directors, by Ext.P4 again requested the first respondent to look into the allegations made by the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of the above, no action was taken in the matter obviously because of political influence alleged to be wielded by the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is hostile towards the petitioner for political reasons. Though the registration of the bank was cancelled, the bank is continuing to function on the strength of the interim orders passed by this court in WP(C)13619 of 2008. At the same time, it is alleged that the second respondent has permitted Wpc 7933/2010 2 another similarly placed bank to continue to function without any interim orders from this court. For the above reasons, it is contended by the petitioner that the inaction on Exts.P3 and P4 representations submitted by the petitioner are vitiated. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also, who submits that appropriate action would be taken on Exts.P3 and P4 in accordance with law. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner, highlighted in Exts.P3 and P4 and to take appropriate action thereon, as enjoined by law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all interested parties. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk