IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2981 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANILAL, S/O. VELAPPAN, PERATH HOUSE, P.O.ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THIRUVAMBADY P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-680 002. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/ARBITRATOR CUM SALES OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PIN-680 001. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. 4. NIKIL HARSHAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, KOORKANCHERRY POST, THRISSUR, PIN-680 007. BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2981 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies setting aside the sale held on 9.7.2010 in the event of the petitioner remitting the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on or before 31.1.2011 is under challenge in this writ petition. The circumstances in which Ext.P1 order was passed are set out in detail in Ext.P3 judgment in W.P.(C) No.227 of 2011 filed by the very same petitioner which was dismissed by me on 17.1.2011, on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that Ext.P1 order had been passed in his favour in that writ petition. I am therefore no setting out the facts in detail in this writ petition. 2. Ext.P1 order was passed on 22.12.2010 on a petition filed by the petitioner before the Honourable Minister for Co-operation who in turn forwarded it to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Thrissur. The Joint Registrar, after considering the grievances set out by the petitioner and after hearing him and the purchaser, the fourth respondent herein, held that the petitioner should deposit the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- before 31.1.2011 to have the sale set aside. Ext.P1 discloses that the fourth respondent had W.P.(C) No.2981 of 2011 2 agreed that the sale may be set aside if the sum of Rs.1,76,000/- deposited by him is refunded with interest at the rate of 5% per annum for the first month and interest at bank rates for the succeeding months. It was after considering the said submission that the Joint Registrar passed Ext.P1 order directing the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on or before 31.1.2011. The petitioner submits that though he presented Ext.P4 petition before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies requesting for three months' time further time to comply with the said direction, the Assistant Registrar declined to receive the original of Ext.P1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- 1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to grant 3 months time to comply with Ext.P1 order. 2. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just, in the interest of justice. 3. The petitioner has not pleaded or proved that the respondents have a statutory or public duty to grant him three months time to comply with Ext.P1 order. A reading of Ext.P1 order indicates that it was on compassionate grounds that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies interfered with the sale and passed W.P.(C) No.2981 of 2011 3 an order, and that too, having regard to the very fair stand taken by the auction purchaser. Further the petitioner has not averred that he did not receive the original of Ext.P1 order in time to arrange payment. In any case, the Assistant Registrar could not have extended the time for payment in view of the fact that Ext.P1 order is one passed by the Joint Registrar. It is evident from the petitioner's conduct that his real intention is to delay the payment of money and at the same time enjoy the benefit of Ext.P1. In such circumstances, I find no reason to grant the reliefs prayed for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.