IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4523 of 2010(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NATTAKOM CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NO.86, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 012, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. BY ADV. MR.KISHOR. B. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. NATTAKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NO.3839,PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 012, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 4523 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner objected to the proposal for giving permission to the first respondent Bank to open a Branch at Pallom kara. Since the petitioner's objections were not being considered, the petitioner approached this court by filing WP(C)No.20125 of 2009. The writ petition was closed on the submission on behalf of the Joint Registrar that an application to start a Branch as apprehended by the petitioner had not been received by him. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of. Subsequently, Joint Registrar summoned the petitioner and first respondent for a hearing. As per Ext.P1, the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the said order in appeal before the Government. The appeal was admitted and the same is pending. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an interim application for stay. The stay petition has been dismissed by Ext.P3 order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 contending that the same was passed without hearing the petitioner. Wpc 4523/2010 2 2. The Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there is no practice of hearing the appellants before stay petitions are disposed of. Accordingly, Ext.P3 has also been passed without hearing the petitioner. 3. Since Ext.P3 has been admittedly passed without hearing the petitioner, I do not think that the said order is sustainable. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the officer had been on leave and therefore the matter was not posted. However, the order was passed after he came back from leave, in a mechanical manner without applying his mind. In view of the fact that Ext.P3 order was passed without hearing the petitioner, I feel that the petitioner can be given an opportunity of being heard. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner afresh, after hearing the petitioner also, expeditiously. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent without any further notice on 24.2.2010. Fresh orders as stipulated above shall be passed within a period of one week thereafter. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk