IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 427 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4661/2008 Dated 17/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT: -------------- K.P.JANARAJAN S/O. KUNJU PILLAI, SHIJU BHAVAN,KANDALLOR SOUTH KANDALLOOR PO, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KANDALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.1410 KANDALLOOR PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT S.ANANDAN. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPEREATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM R2 BY G.P. SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, ALONG WITH WA NO.147 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal Nos.427 & 147 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. During hearing of these Writ Appeals, Government Pleader submitted that Government has also equal grievance against the judgment of the learned Single Judge and Writ Appeal is contemplated, though with delay as usual. However, we thought if these Writ Appeals are heard and dismissed, then Government need not waste time preparing and filing Writ Appeal separately on their side. Accordingly we have heard counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. On appellant's complaint, enquiry was conducted and based on the findings in the enquiry, the Board of Directors of the Society was superceded under Section 32 of the Co-operative Societies Act, against which writ petition filed by the first respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Even though Writ Appeal was admitted against judgment, the Division Bench did not grant stay as a result of which the 2 Board continued until their tenure was over. Counsel for the first respondent submitted that thereafter fresh election was held and new Board has taken over the management of the Society. Challenge in the Writ Appeals is only against judgment of the learned Single Judge cancelling the supercession order and restoring the Board. We feel the issues raised have become academic because the Board has continued upto end of their tenure and thereafter fresh election was conducted leading to constitution of new Board. Since the only issue raised in the Writ Appeals is against judgment of the learned Single Judge cancelling the supercession, we have to necessarily hold that the Writ Appeals have become infructuous on account of the development stated above. Consequently Writ Appeals are dismissed as infructuous. Whatever is the legal issue, since we are not considering the merits of the legal contentions raised, those questions are left open for being raised before any authority. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms