IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 24646 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.MOHANAN, S/O.KANNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, PRESIDENT, PUNALUR SCHEDULED CASTE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,NO.Q489, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM-691 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PUNALUR-691 305. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 24646 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner,who is the President of Punalur Scheduled Caste Service Co-operative Society pertains to the inaction on the part of the 4th respondent in forwarding Ext.P2 application to the competent authority viz., the 3rd respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that as per Ext.P1, the General Body of the Society resolved to amend certain clauses in the bye-law of the Society. Ext.P2 application was submitted for registration of the said amendment made to the said bye-law. However, the said application has been withheld by the 4th respondent without any authority. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is duty bound to forward it to the competent authority viz., the 3rd respondent for consideration. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the Government Pleader. 3. There cannot be any doubt that when Ext.P2 has been sought to be routed through proper channel the authority WPC.24646/2010 : 2 : receiving the same viz., the 4th respondent is duty bound to forward it to the competent authority and he has no authority to withhold the same. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent is the competent authority to take decision on Ext.P2. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to forward Ext.P2 application to the 3rd respondent for consideration. This shall be done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On receipt of Ext.P2 application, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon expeditiously, and considering the fact that Ext.P2 is the application submitted as early as on 25.5.2008, it shall be done at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of Ext.P2. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge