IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35500 of 2008(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE MELUKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3183, MELUKAVUMATTOM.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP;BY ITS PRESIDENT. SUNNY MATHEW. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY, ADV. SRI.R.KIRAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. EAPEN DOMINIC, THEKKEKANDATHIL HOUSE, MELUKAVUMATTOM.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.35500 of 2008-A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Having regard to the nature of the orders being issued hereunder, notice to the first respondent is dispensed with preserving his right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2.Ext.P2 is a notice issued for proceedings under Section 32(1) of the KCS Act. It appears that the only allegation against the petitioner is the maintenance of certain fixed deposits with two establishments. It is stated that one has already been withdrawn with the entire interest due under that transaction. In so far as the second one is concerned, it is pointed out that interest at agreed rates is being paid by the Society holding that money in deposit, to the petitioner and the petitioner has also requested that Society to WP(C)35500/08 -: 2 :- return the deposits. Therefore, all that would remain is a technical objection as to whether the deposits were made in terms of the circulars. That is a matter that the Joint Registrar has to consider as an objection by the petitioner to Ext.P2. This is all the more because, quality of jurisdiction under Section 32 is primarily to be exercised by the Joint Registrar, having regard to the scope of the settled provision of law as enunciated by this Court in different precedents. But, at the same time, it needs to be noted that the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P2 has been generated solely at the instance of the complaint of the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader states, on instructions, that the first respondent owes money to the Society. It is in this context that the petitioner has made the allegation that the entire exercise is triggered by the complaint of the first respondent, who is more concerned of utilizing the situation to pressurize the petitioner to deter from enforcing any claim against the first WP(C)35500/08 -: 3 :- respondent. In the above circumstances, it is ordered that the Joint Registrar will hear the petitioner and take a final decision on the proceedings commenced as per Ext.P2 in accordance with law and the petitioner will be at liberty to move against the first respondent in accordance with law for recovery of all amounts due. It is also clarified that whatever has been stated about regarding the involvement of the first respondent in the matter of initiation of Ext.P2 is merely a reference to the allegations made by the writ petitioner and in no manner amounts to any view of this Court as against the conduct of the Joint Registrar. All other issues are left open. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/121208