IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 227 of 2011(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANILAL, S/O.VELAPPAN, PERATH HOUSE, P.O.ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/ARBITRATOR CUM SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THIRUVAMBADY P.O., PIN-680 001. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.227 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a loan from the Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited. When he defaulted repayment of the loan the bank filed Arbitration Case No.972 of 2006. An award was passed by the Arbitrator holding him liable to pay the sum of Rs.71,644/- together with interest and costs. Even thereafter the petitioner did not make any payment. The bank thereupon took steps to execute the award. In execution of the award the security offered by the petitioner was brought to sale and sold on 9.7.2010 and it was purchased by the bank itself for the sum of Rs.1,76,000/-. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation. This writ petition was thereafter filed challenging the sale notice and seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to regularise the loan availed by him and to grant him instalments. The relevant prayers are as follows:- (i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus calling for the records relating to W.P(C).No.227 of 2011 -:2:- passing of Ext.P2 and quash the same. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ order or direction, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to regularise the loan availed by the petitioner and also direct to grant instalment facility to pay back the balance amount. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 5.1.2011 the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent was requested to get instructions and the writ petition was directed to be posted on 13.1.2011. This Court also directed that if as on 5.1.2011 the sale held pursuant to Ext.P2 has not been confirmed, it shall not be confirmed if the petitioner deposits the sum of Rs.25,000/- before the close of banking hours on 12.1.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner has complied with the said direction. The writ petition came up for further hearing on 13.1.2011. On that day Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent bank submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation was forwarded to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Thrissur and that after hearing the petitioner orders were passed on the said representation to W.P(C).No.227 of 2011 -:3:- the effect that if the petitioner deposits the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on or before 31.1.2011 the sale will stand set aside. The learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent bank submitted that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the fact that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies had heard him on 22.12.2010 and also the fact that orders have been passed on his representation evidenced by Ext.P3. 3. On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was granted time till today to ascertain and submit whether Ext.P3 representation has been disposed of as stated by the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent bank. Today when the writ petition came up for further hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not suppressed any material fact and that till date the order, if any, passed on Ext.P3 representation by the Joint Registrar has not been communicated to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the copy of the order made available by the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent bank bears the date 20.12.2010 and therefore the statement therein that the petitioner was heard on 22.12.2010 is erroneous. The learned W.P(C).No.227 of 2011 -:4:- counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the order was typed only on 12.1.2011 as can be seen from the last line of the order and therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in this writ petition which was presented on 4.1.2011. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Government Pleader was asked to verify and submit whether the petitioner was heard on 22.12.2010 and also to explain the disparity in the date of the order. The learned Government Pleader, after obtaining instructions from the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thrissur, submitted that the petitioner was last heard on 22.12.2010 and the order was dictated on 22.12.2010 itself, but it was typed only on 12.1.2011. The leaned Government Pleader also submitted that the date 20.12.2010 is a mistake. 4. It is not in dispute that Ext.P3 petition submitted by the petitioner to the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation was forwarded to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Thrissur and after hearing the petitioner the Joint Registrar has passed orders to the effect that if the petitioner deposits the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on or before 31.1.2011 the sale will stand set aside. It is also evident from the order passed by the Joint W.P(C).No.227 of 2011 -:5:- Registrar of Co-operative Societies that it was passed after hearing the petitioner on 22.12.2010. The petitioner has however not referred to the fact that he was heard by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 22.12.2010 in the writ petition. Apart from merely stating that he had submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Minister the petitioner had not made any averment in the writ petition as regards the enquiry conducted by the Joint Registrar in the said petition or the hearing held by him. I am therefore, satisfied that the petitioner has suppressed relevant and material facts in the writ petition. The writ petition is, in my opinion, liable to be dismissed on that short ground. I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies on Ext.P3 petition, it will be open to him to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.227 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 17th January, 2011