IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 369 of 2008(K) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4513/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CHENKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1258, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT AND ANOTHER. BY ADV SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------------- R.P. No 369 of 2008 in W.P.C. No 4513 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th March 2008 O R D E R Learned Senior Government Pleader moving the review petition contended that even if the discretion of this court was rightly exercised to grant stay of execution of a particular order which is yet to be passed, the order of stay ought not have been granted for a period of two months as has been done. I notice that a Division Bench of this court in W.A. No 355 of 2006 had held that an anticipatory order of stay as against a statutory decision should not be granted unless clear and cogent reasons are made out inviting such an exercise and without recording such reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that by an earlier judgment in W.A. No 1967 of 2007 the Division Bench had affirmed the issuance of a direction to defer the enforcement of an anticipated statutory proceedings. 2. Having considered the judgment sought to be reviewed, I had noticed therein that the petitioner had sounded a clear apprehension that the intention of the proposed statutory proceedings is an oblique one and that it would be ultimately one intended to displace the writ petitioners from the house. However, RP 369/08 2 I feel that the order of stay granted for two months was apparently unnecessary. The same is reduced to be operative only for two weeks from the date of communication of any decision that may be adversed to the petitioner. The review petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge 28/03/2008 en [true copy]