IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11151 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ PUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.345, PUTHUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), TRICHUR. BY SR.GP.SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.11151 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner, a co-operative society, has been issued a notice under Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. According to the petitioner, the allegations can be classified into three, of which the major chunk are attributable exclusively to the committee which was earlier in office. The second allegation is that the rent for the rooms let out by the society has been reduced by 20%. The petitioner appears to have a defence when it states that such reduction was because the tenants were likely to vacate and leave the premises since their business prospects in the locality had dwindled. The third allegation is that the society had WPC11151/2008 -:2:- appointed a sweeper. According to the petitioner, it happened because the incumbent in the office was promoted to the post of clerk. In the aforesaid fact situation, it is apparent that without the petitioner giving an opportunity to place its defence and of being heard in connection therewith, the respondent ought not to have concluded the proceedings. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no hearing on the day shown in Ext.P5 and that the respondent was on leave on that day. 2. I do not find any ground to assume that the respondent would not act in terms of the statutory provisions and the dictate of law requires consideration in an objective way. Learned counsel for the petitioner further WPC11151/2008 -:3:- points out that similar cases were dealt with by this Court on 6-8-2004 in W.A.No.1363 of 2004 and that could be treated as a precedent to the case in hand. This is the matter that the petitioner could place before the respondent by placing a copy. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the objections of the petitioner to Ext.P5 will be considered and disposed of, in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, including as to the applicability of the judgment referred to above. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner seriously canvassed for an interdictory order against any final decision WPC11151/2008 -:4:- if it were adverse to the petitioner, I am not inclined to issue any such order merely because the proceedings under Section 32 have been generated without issuing any order and because of the nature of the allegations against the petitioner. It is clarified that such relief is being refused since this Court is satisfied that the respondent will act fairly in the discharge of duties of considering the objections to the notice under Section 32(1) of the Act. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl. 4-4-2008