IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16236 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.K.VIJAYAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, AMBALAPPADY HOUSE, VENGAPPALLY AMSOM DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THEKKUMTHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THEKKUMTHARA. 2. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE, REP. BY SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 16236 OF 2010 D ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 order of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in R.P.2/2007. As per the said order dated 31/1/2008, a revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as being out of time finding that there was a delay of eight months in filing the same. According to the petitioner, the delay that has been caused in the present case is only 97 days. In support of the above contention, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit stating that the contention of the petitioner was not properly considered by the second respondent – Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Ext.P10 medical certificate to the effect that the petitioner had been undergoing treatment at Nirmala Ayurvedic Hospital, Wayanad as an inpatient for the period from 10/5/2006 to 27/12/2006. Therefore, he was not in a position to file a revision during the said period. Immediately on completion of his treatment, the petitioner has filed the revision on 10/1/2007. On the above basis, it is submitted that the delay in WPC 16236/2010 2 filing the revision has been properly explained. Therefore, the counsel prays for setting aside Ext.P9 order. 2. It was noticed that though Ext.P9 order is dated 31/1/2008, even the said order was not challenged within a reasonable time. The petitioner then filed an additional affidavit stating that a copy of the said order was obtained by him only on 23/12/2009. As per order dated 28/6/2010 the learned Govt. Pleader was directed to ascertain whether a copy of Ext.P9 was served on the petitioner only on 23/12/2009. The Govt. Pleader on instructions submitted that Ext.P9 order was received by the petitioner at one of the camp sittings of the second respondent Tribunal and that the Tribunal has not maintained any records to show when the order was received. Since it is reported that there is no evidence to dispute the statement of the petitioner made on oath, I have no option but to presume the correctness of the said statement. Therefore, I accept the statement in the petitioner's affidavit that Ext.P9 order was served on him only on 23/12/2009. 3. Ext.P9 order appears to have been passed on the assumption that there is a delay of more than 8 months in filing the revision. It is to be noted that as per the decision of this Court in Thajuddin Shameer v. Secretary, Coastal Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. WPC 16236/2010 3 {2004(1) KLT 909}, it has been held that since no time limit is prescribed for filing a revision, a revision can be filed within a period of 90 days. However, where a revision is not filed within 90 days, the delay will have to be explained in the revision petition. No separate petition for condonation of delay is necessary. In a subsequent decision in Calicut City Service Co-op. Bank v. State of Kerala {2008(3) KHC 917} this Court has further held that since under Section 83 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 an appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of the decision that is sought to be challenged, a revision has to be filed within a period of three months of the expiry of the time fixed for filing an appeal. Therefore, the delay that has to be explained by the petitioner in this case is the delay that has been occasioned after the expiry of five months from the date of the impugned order. Ext.P9 order does not show that the above aspects have been adverted to or considered by the second respondent. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P9. The second respondent has to consider the matter afresh, in the light of the dicta laid down by the decisions referred to above. The second respondent would also have to consider the acceptability of the explanation that is put WPC 16236/2010 4 forward by the petitioner for explaining the delay that has been occasioned in this case. 4. In the result this writ petition is allowed, Ext.P9 is set aside. The second respondent shall consider and pass orders on the revision petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, as indicated above, expeditiously. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 16236/2010 5