IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31500 of 2008(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JESSYMOL THOMAS, W/O. P.M. THOMAS, PLAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR POST, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, NO. 2675, PULIMOODU JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE RETURNING OFFICER, THE INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (NORTH UNIT), KOTTAYAM. 4. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT EX-SERVICEMEN, WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, NO. 2675, PULIMOODU JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.31500 of 2008-Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4. I have gone through that document. It appears that the petitioner handed over a room belonging to her to the 4th respondent society under Ext.P1 which is termed as a licence. I hasten to clarify that this Court is not going into the quality or nature of Ext.P1 transaction and the legal incidents thereof. According to the petitioner, after the term of that entrustment, and for different other reasons, she is entitled to be handed over the keys of that room. She has also certain complaints regarding certain repairs, adjustments of advance and different other issues as reflected in Ext.P4. This is not a matter which the Joint Registrar could consider and take WP(C)31500/08 -: 2 :- a decision. The petitioner is also a member of the 4th respondent society, it is contended. The transactions having given rise to a dispute, it could have considered only under Section 69 of the KCS Act, unless of course Section 11(1) of Act 11/1965 has any effect on the transactions evidenced by Ext.P1. At any rate, I am clear in my mind that the Joint Registrar cannot be permitted to act on the issue raised in Ext.P4. He cannot, therefore, be directed to take up Ext.P4 and consider it. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/311008