IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8638 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.995, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, P.O.KATTILKADAVU 690 542. KARUNAGAPPILLY,KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. JOIN REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES (G),KOLLAM. 2. OCHIRA BLOCK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.Q 814,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.O.KATTILKADAVU,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8638 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Primary Co-operative Society having three branches, represented by its President. The second respondent is a Housing Co-operative Society. The President of the State Housing Society was the former Secretary of the petitioner bank. The petitioner and the second respondent Society being Societies registered as Agricultural Credit Society and Housing Society respectively, they had adopted model bye-laws in accordance with the provisions of Rule-6 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules. According to the petitioner, the scope of the bye-laws of both the petitioner and the second respondent are different as is clear from Exts.P1 and P2. By Ext.P3, the second respondent has effected major amendments to Ext.P2 bye-laws which have the effect of changing the character of the Housing Society into a Credit Society. The petitioner has objected to the said amendments by submitting Ext.P4 before the first respondent. The counsel for the petitioner points out that the amendments that were passed cannot be brought into wpc No.8638/2010 2 force without the approval of the first respondent. Therefore, Ext.P3 amendments can be brought into force only after getting approval of the first respondent. Since Ext.P4 is also pending consideration of the first respondent, the petitioner prays for appropriate directions to the first respondent to consider the objections in Ext.P4 also while considering Ext.P3 amendments passed by the second respondent. The learned Government Pleader has no objection to such a direction being issued. 2. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 objections submitted by the petitioner also while considering the question of grant of approval to Ext.P3 amendments passed by the second respondent Society to their bye-laws. The first respondent shall take a final decision on Exts.P3 and P4 after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the other interested persons. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/