IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 RP.No. 56 of 2009(N) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37094/2007 Dated 11/11/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER : IST RESPONDENT IN THE WPC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MARAVANTHURUTHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.121, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EDAVATTOM P.O., KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.SADANANDAN, S/O.KESAVAN, VETTIPARAMBIL, MARAVANTHURUTHU P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE SECRETARY/ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, P.B.NO.85, KALA NIVAS, T.C.27/156, 157 CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, VAIKOM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. RAGHU KOTTAPPURAM R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. P.V. MOHANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No. 56 of 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 37094 OF 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.3 and respondent No.4. The learned standing counsel takes notice for respondent No.3. 2. Heard. 3. The relief granted to the first respondent is not challenged. 4. In the judgment, I had stated that the demand notice issued by the Pension Board has attained finality. I had also directed to consider the objection of the bank and reduce the total outstandings. 5. It is agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 that the judgment sought to be reviewed shall not stand in the way of respondent No.3 in considering the objection of the review petitioner to the demand made by the Board. R.P No. 56/2009 in WP(C) No. 37094/2007 : 2 : 6. It is clarified that the consideration of the objection of the review petitioner to the demand in question will be done untrammelled by anything stated in the judgment sought to be reviewed. So, any payment made by the review petitioner on the basis of the judgment sought to be reviewed shall be reckoned in adjusting against the future accruals in the fund of the Pension Board. This review petition is ordered accordingly. (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) KMD R.P No. 56/2009 in WP(C) No. 37094/2007 : 3 :