IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15134 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.E 252 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOOTHATTUKULAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.AFSAL KHAN SRI.V.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE HEAD MASTER GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL, PALAKUZHA, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM PO ERNAKULAM DIST. 4. SHRI. P.K.MOHANAN PUNNILATHIL HOUSE, MEKKADAMPU PO VALAKOM VILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.15134 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Co-operative Society. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent had availed of two loans of Rs.10,000/- each. Exts.P1 & P2 are the loan agreements and Exts.P3 & P4 are the loan applications and employment certificates. Default was committed and request was made to the 3rd respondent for effecting recovery of the amount due to the petitioner. 2. Though, requests for recovery were received, the 3rd respondent did not effect recovery. Complaints made to the 2nd respondent also did not yield any result. The petitioner submits that the failure of respondents 2 & 3 amounts to violation of Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and that it entails consequences as provided under Section 94(5) of the Act. According to him, this also in violation of the Kerala Financial Code. It is stated that ignoring the request made for effecting recovery and not to issue Non Liability Certificate, Ext.P12 Non Liability Certificate was issued. 3. The petitioner says that in view of the above, he has WP(C) No.15134/2009 -2- moved the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P13 seeking to have his grievances redressed and also praying to take action against respondents 2 & 3. It is stated that even on Ext.P13, there has not been any response. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has urged his grievances in Ext.P13, which has already been submitted to the 1st respondent, at this stage, I feel that their grievances can be redressed by directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. 6. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg