IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29613 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- THE KARUVANTHURUTHY(FEROKE)SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. D-2638, KARUVANTHURUTHY ,KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA SMT.S.MEERA SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GEN), KOZHIKODE. BY SP. GOVT.PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.29613 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 27th September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by Ext.P8 order whereby the application of the petitioner for upgradation of the existing extension counter in Feroke Town as a branch of the petitioner bank was rejected. Ext.P8 contained a further direction to the petitioner to close down the extension counter on the ground that without obtaining proper permission it is being functioned as a branch. Ground No.14 in the writ petition itself would suggest that Ext.P8 is an appealable order under Section 83(1)(j) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. According to the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P8 the petitioner has to close down the extension counter for the time being and therefore, the remedy under Section 83(1) (j) of the Act cannot be said to be an alternative efficacious one. 2. Admittedly, Ext.P8 is an appealable order under Section 83 (1)(j) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the extension counter in question has been functioning from 26.12.2006 onwards. In the light of the said fact it is contended that closing down of the extension counter in terms of Ext.P8 order would detrimentally affect the functioning as also the prospects of the petitioner bank. WP(C).No.29613/2010 2 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. In view of the admitted position that Ext.P8 is appealable, I am of the considered view that in case the petitioner is having any grievance with respect to Ext.P8 order, he has to resort to the appellate remedy provided under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act. However, as already noticed, Ext.P8 carried a further direction to close down the extension counter which has been functioning since 26.12.2006. Taking note of the said circumstances, it is ordered that to enable the petitioner to resort to the appellate remedy under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act, two weeks time is granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority raising grievances against Ext.P8. The petitioner will also be at liberty to move an application for stay of operation and implementation of Ext.P8 order. In case the petitioner prefers such an appeal along with a petition for stay, till the stay petition is taken up and considered, Ext.P8 order to the extent it orders closing down of extension counter will stand stayed. This will be subject to the further orders on the stay petition to be moved before the appellate authority. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS