IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 433 of 2008(U) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14456/2006 Dated 25/01/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER - 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LD.NO.Q.390, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.SOMANATHAN NAIR, RETIRED SECRETARY, THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.Q.390, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.433 OF 2008 IN W.P(C).No.14456 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 O R D E R 1.This matter is deferred for want of steps to issue notice. Yet the writ petitioner, first respondent in this review petition, appears. Learned Government Pleader appears for the second respondent. 2.The writ petitioner was a servant of the review petitioner, a co- operative bank. The Joint Registrar issued Ext.P3 directions. The writ petition was filed by the retired employee seeking a direction to comply with Ext.P3. All that has been done as per the judgment sought to be reviewed is to direct that if necessary steps are not taken by the bank following Ext.P3, the Joint Registrar will consider whether action is required against the third respondent and its committee for failure to act on the directions issued by the Joint Registrar. RP.433/08 2 3.The fundamental plea projected in this review petition is that the writ petitioner's remedy was to go for arbitration under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and not to seek remedy through the Joint Registrar. The fact of the matter remains that the Joint Registrar's order has become final. That order could have been challenged by the bank if it were aggrieved on grounds of jurisdiction etc. But a collateral attack to that order, when it is sought to be enforced, cannot normally be countenanced in a statutory hierarchy. All that the bank has to do is to reconcile the amounts which are due to the petitioner in terms of the order of the Joint Registrar and do the needful. The direction to consider taking action, as is contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed, would become operational only if the Joint Registrar is satisfied that there is willful disobedience or willful neglect to comply with the command of that officer. Once amounts are fixed and action taken, if there are any further disputes, they have to be resolved in accordance with law. I, therefore, do not find any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment RP.433/08 3 warranting review. With the aforesaid clarification, this review petition is closed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.12/11.