IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17018 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PERUMPAZHUTHOOR AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T-1522, MAMPAZHAKARA, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 126, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.17018 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, has approached this court, challenging the denial of permission to open a Branch at Anappara, which is within the geographical/territorial limits assigned to the society by its approved by laws. According to the petitioner, though the authorities recommended the Branch initially, ultimately the application was turned down by Ext.P5. Though the petitioner had challenged Ext.P5 before the Government, by Ext.P6, the appellate authority has confirmed Ext.P5. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 in these proceedings. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per Ext.P5, what is stated is that separate rules and regulations regarding the sanction of similar branches for conducting credit business has not been issued by the authorities and therefore the request of the petitioner is temporarily deferred. However in Ext.P6, it is pointed out that various other factors including additional materials in the form of a Wpc 17018/2010 2 report submitted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies have been referred to, without giving a copy thereof, to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submits that Exts.P5 and P6 are unsustainable. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that what the petitioner wanted to do was to engage in credit business, as is evident from Ext.P2, which was not permissible in law. It is further pointed out that there was another bank, Panachamoodu Service Co-operative Bank operating in the area and that there was no need for the petitioner bank to open a new branch conducting the very same operations. It is further pointed out that the area of operation of the petitioner's society comes within the area of this service co- operative bank and that if the petitioner were permitted to open a new branch, it would affect the financial stability of the other banks conducting operations in the area. Therefore, it is submitted that Ext.P6 does not call for any interference. 4. A reading of Exts.P5 and P6 do not show that any additional grounds have been incorporated in Ext.P6 as contended by the counsel for the petitioner. What is stated in Ext.P6 is that the object of the Wpc 17018/2010 3 petitioner's society in opening a branch at Anappara is to conduct credit business and that there are no rules permitting the opening of a branch for the said purpose alone. It is also stated in Ext.P5 that the petitioner's application was being deferred. However in Ext.P6, the appellate authority has gone into the matter in greater detail and has taken into account all the facts and circumstances that are existing. Thereafter, it is on a detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances that Ext.P6 proceedings have been upheld. The considerations in Ext.P6 are all relevant and material and justifying the conclusions that are arrived at by the appellate authority. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the report of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has been relied on without putting the petitioner to notice of the same. I find that a personal hearing was conducted on 7.1.2010 which was attended both by the counsel for the appellant as well as the representative of the Joint Registrar. Therefore, it is clear that Ext.P6 was preceded by a personal hearing. Such personal hearing would certainly include a reference to the documents and other materials relied on by both parties. I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P6. I also Wpc 17018/2010 4 notice that the application of the petitioner being declined only temporarily, it is open to the petitioner to move afresh, if there are any change in circumstances that justify the same. This writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk