IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28732 of 2010(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BRAHMAMANGALAM GRAMA SWARAJ SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2966 BRAHMAMANGALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 614, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) VAIKOM, PIN-686 141. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.28732 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 24th September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. As per resolution No.7 dated 28.3.2009 viz., Ext.P1 the bank took a decision to amend the Staff Pattern and Feeder Category Rules. They have forwarded it to the Joint Registrar. The said amendment was rejected against which they have filed an appeal and admittedly the appeal is pending. Subsequently, the bank has brought in another amendment to the Feeder Category Rules as per Ext.P3. For approval of the same, it was forwarded to the Joint Registrar through the Assistant Registrar. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of forwarding the same to the Joint Registrar, the competent authority to consider the question whether the amendment could be approved or not, the Assistant Registrar returned the same. The contention of the petitioner is that the Assistant Registrar is duty bound to receive Ext.P3 and forward it to the competent authority to consider in accordance with law. The very fact that Ext.P1 resolution was considered and a decision was taken by the Joint Registrar would undoubtedly a pointer to the fact that the competent authority is the Joint Registrar. In that view of the matter, the third respondent should WP(C).No.28732/2010 2 have forwarded Ext.P3 amendment to the second respondent for consideration in accordance with law. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the third respondent refused to accept Ext.P3 and forwarded it to the second respondent on account of the fact that against the earlier order passed by the Joint Registrar vide Ext.P2 an appeal has been preferred before the Government and it is pending. I am of the considered view that, that shall not be a reason for the third respondent to refuse to accept Ext.P3 and forward it to the competent authority. Any decision on Ext.P3 count be taken only by the competent authority. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to resubmit Ext.P3 to the third respondent. On receipt of Ext.P3, the third respondent shall forward the same to the second respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of 10 days from the date of resubmission of Ext.P3 to enable the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the same in accordance with law. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS