IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9644 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE KARUVANTHURUTHY (FEROKE) SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.D-2638, KARUVANTHURUTHY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT: --------------- THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GEN), KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9644 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioner Society was registered with its area of operation as the entire Feroke Panchayat. It now has its Head Office branch, a branch at Chungam and an extension counter at Feroke town. The petitioner relies on clause 1(b) of their bye-laws, which provides that there shall be an evening extension counter at Feroke town, to contend that they are entitled to continue their extension counter at Feroke. The case of the petitioner is that in compliance with the provision in the bye-laws, they have started an extension counter at Feroke, which commenced functioning from 26.12.2006 onwards. 2. Since within no time the deposits crossed Rs. One crore and the total transactions within a span of eight months crossed Rs. Nine crores , the bank decided to upgrade the extension counter to a full fledged branch. Accordingly, a resolution was passed on 20.12.2006 and an application dated 6.1.2007 was submitted to the W.P.(C) .No.9644/2010 2 respondent, requesting permission to upgrade the extension counter to a full fledged branch. The said application is Ext.P2. Instead of granting the branch that was sought for by the petitioner, the petitioner complains that notices have been issued by the respondent alleging that the extension counter itself was started without the permission of the authorities. Though the petitioner submitted an explanation Ext.P3, Ext.P6 proceedings have been issued. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, a reading of Ext.P6 shows that the respondent has already made up its mind regarding the entire issue and therefore the hearing contemplated by Ext.P6 would only be a mere formality. The petitioner has in the circumstances filed this writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to give sanction for upgrading the extension counter as sought for and other ancillary reliefs. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that the petitioner bank was registered on 31.1.1995 and had started functioning from 1.2.1995 onwards. As per the bye-law provision 1 (b), the petitioner bank was permitted to open an evening extension W.P.(C) .No.9644/2010 3 counter in Feroke town. But, the Board of Directors resolved on 2.5.2006 to shift the evening extension counter from Feroke to Feroke Chungam, which is a place away from the Feroke town. The said extension counter accordingly started functioning from 6.5.1996 onwards. Later on, the said extension counter was upgraded to a branch. 5. Subsequently, the bank by a resolution dated 21.1.2006 decided to open another extension counter at Feroke town. The contention of the petitioner that the said extension counter was started in compliance with the provisions in the bye-laws is contrary to fact. According to the respondent, it is the extension counter that was started by the petitioner in accordance with the bye-law provision that was shifted to Feroke Chungam and later upgraded as a branch. Therefore yet another extension counter in Feroke was not permissible in law. It is further pointed out that permission of the respondent is necessary for starting an extension counter. However, no such permission was sought before opening the extension counter in Feroke town. It is therefore pointed out that the present extension counter is functioning in violation of the law. W.P.(C) .No.9644/2010 4 6. At any rate, Ext.P6 has given an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard before a final decision is taken in the matter. It is up to the petitioner to appear before the respondent and to convince the authority regarding the justifiability of their action. In view of the fact that Ext.P6 is only a notice, it is pointed out that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition. 7. I have heard Sri. B.S.Swathi Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri. K.S.Muhammed Hashim, the learned senior Government Pleader. 8. I notice that Ext.P6 is only an intimation asking the petitioner to attend a hearing on 1.3.2010 to submit any explanation that the petitioner may have to offer with respect to the allegations made. Though it is contended by the learned counsel that the respondent has already foreclosed the issue, as can be seen from the statements in Ext.P6, I am not willing to accept the said contention. Ext.P6 does not contain any positive findings regarding the issue. The learned senior Government Pleader refers to Circular No.39/06 dated 2.9.2006 to submit that branches of a society could be opened only with the prior permission of the respondent. In the present case, W.P.(C) .No.9644/2010 5 the petitioner has started the extension counter without the permission of the respondent and the same is presently functioning as a branch. It is not for me to decide whether the petitioner's extension counter is functioning as a full fledged branch or not. The question whatever it is or not, is to be decided by the respondent. Since no final decision has been taken by the respondent in the matter, it is sufficient that the respondent is directed to proceed further pursuant to Ext.P6 and to take a final decision. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner, after posting such enquiry to a particular date. Such decision as contemplated by Ext.P6 shall be taken after considering the explanation of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P5 and also after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that due to the pendency of this writ petition, the hearing that was notified in Ext.P6 was being adjourned periodically and that the same stands posted at present to 16.6.2010. The respondent shall be free to consider the matter on the said date or on such other date to which the proceedings may be W.P.(C) .No.9644/2010 6 adjourned. The matter shall be considered and a decision shall be taken in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE ) vps W.P.(C) .No.9644/2010 7