IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31761 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOHN MATHEW, S/O.LATE MATHEW, AGED 50, KARIKKAVAYALIL, KADANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KADANADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.K.2, KOLLAPPILLY, ANTHINADU P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 651, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATION (GENERAL) SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) MEENACHIL, PALAI. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 6. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, KIDANGOOR SCB GROUP, KIDANGOOR. R3 TO R6 BY GOVT. PELADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.31761 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Having regard to the nature of the order being issued hereunder, notice to the respondents dispensed with, preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. The petitioner availed certain facilities from the first respondent. Alleging that action is not being taken on his complaint regarding the failure to extend to him the benefits of certain loan waiver schemes, he filed a writ petition. That led to Ext.P8 judgment, whereby, he stood relegated to the Joint Registrar for consideration of his representation. In the meanwhile, it appears that even before a copy of Ext.P8 judgment could reach the Joint Registrar, he had forwarded the petitioner's complaint to the Assistant Registrar, who, in turn, has now issued Ext.P9, taking the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the loan waiver scheme. The petitioner points out that Exts.P4 and P9 are contradictory and there is no reason to WPC.31761/08 Page numbers state that he is to be deprived of the benefit of the loan waiver scheme. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused Exts.P4 and P9, I deem it appropriate that the Joint Registrar hears the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P9 and takes a decision at his end. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioner appears before the third respondent and produces a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition, the third respondent will hear the petitioner and the first respondent and consider the relevant materials and decide as to the correctness of Ext.P9. To aid such action, it is ordered that all further proceedings on the basis of Ext.P1 will stand suspended for a period of three months. The Joint Registrar will ensure that a final decision is issued within two months. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.