IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21137 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ELDHO JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, KOCHUPURACKAL HOUSE, VARAPETTY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.R.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. K.S.GIRIJA, D/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, PAINKAL HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE KOTHAMANGALAM HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., E314, P.O.KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21137 OF 2009 (J) ===================== Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was promoted as Secretary of the 2nd respondent w.e.f. 1/7/06. Challenging the promotion, the 1st respondent filed Ext.P4 before the 3rd respondent, taking recourse to Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act seeking to have the resolution promoting the petitioner rescinded. To such proceedings, Ext.P5 is the reply submitted by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P6 notice has been issued to the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions contained in Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the remedy if at all available to the 1st respondent is before the Arbitration Court and not before the Joint Registrar. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgments of this court in Prakasini v. Joint Registrar (2006(1) KLT 199) and Raveendran v. State of Kerala (2007(3) KLT 558). 2. In my view, even if there is substance in what the petitioner contends, the course open to the petitioner is to appear before the 3rd respondent and raise the objection. Petitioner has WPC 21137/09 :2 : not raised the objection, and on the other hand has rushed to this Court by filing this writ petition, which is impermissible. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to raise the maintainability of Ext.P4 before the 3rd respondent himself, in which event, the 3rd respondent shall decide the question of maintainability with notice to the 1st respondent, as a preliminary issue. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp