IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2890 of 2009(R) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.RAVEENDRAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, PEROOR THATTARAKONAM P.O. KOLLAM. BY MR.B.SURESH KUMAR - ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KOLLAM. 2. THE PEROOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.Q.NO.1222 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TKMC P.O. KOLLAM -691005. 3. M.SURALAL,THOTTUMKARA VEEDU, PEROOR KOLLAM. MS.S.KARTHIKA -ADVOCATE FOR R2 MR.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN ADVOCATE FOR R2 MR.M.R.ANISON – ADVOCATE FOR R2 MS.K.P.GEETHA MANI – ADVOCATE - FOR R2 MR.P.S.ABHISHEK – ADVOCATE - FOR R2 MS.KAVYA P.PRASAD – ADVOCATE - FOR R2 MR.T.R.RAJESH ADVOCATE FOR R2. MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR - GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2890 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent was a member of the governing body of the 2nd respondent society and also officiated as its Secretary. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P1 audit report, the findings were entered that the 3rd respondent had received substantial amounts towards daily allowances. The complaint is that no action was taken by the Society or its officials to recover the said amount from the 3rd respondent. The petitioner states that the members of the Society have filed Ext.P2 compliant before the 1st respondent and that even on the complaint no action was taken. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, in which they dispute the bonafidies of the petitioner and also the unsustainability of the relief that is sought for. However, from the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is seen that the Bank has passed Ext.R1 (a) resolution to request the Assistant Registrar to ratify the payments made to the 3rd respondent. Proceeding further, it is WP(C) No.2890/2009 -2- stated in paragraph 3 that a fact finding enquiry was conducted and that by Ext.R1(b) proceedings, a unit inspector has been ordered to conduct an inspection. 3. In view of the position as above, I do not think it necessary for this Court to direct consideration of Ext.P2, where the members of the Society are allegedly seeking steps for recovery pursuant to Ext.P1. Now in view of Ext.R1(b), appointing a Unit Inspector for conducting the inspection, it is only appropriate that the Unit Inspector concerned completes the proceedings in pursuance thereof. 4. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the Unit Inspector appointed by Ext.R1(b) to complete the proceedings. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible on production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg