IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 22950 of 2006(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SUBRAN, S/O. KARUPPAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, KARTHULLY HOUSE, KARUMAL P.O. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. 3. VELOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, VELOOR, VADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R.1,2 ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R3 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.22950/2006 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 8/12/2000 IN WP(C) NO. 33380/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DIRECTION DTD. 18/04/2002 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 5/08/2003 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/06/2004 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO.22950 OF 2006 (F) ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a member of the third respondent co- operative bank. The impugned orders were generated at his instance. The complaint is that the members of the Board of Directors were collecting inspection fee in relation to the loans, which were not supported by any collateral security over immovable properties. The statutory authorities have taken a view that the issue in hand does not call for surcharge proceedings, since the action was not attributable to any negligence or any willful disobedience of the directions and the authorities have issued directions, which would be sufficient to take care of the justice in the situation, particularly when the petitioner has no case that he has been deprived of any amount as inspection fee. This is not a case for visitorial jurisdiction to be exercised for quashing Exhibits P4 and P6 orders. Hence, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/11/11 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.