IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1923 of 2011(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THE PRESIDENT, NEDUVATHOOR PANCHAYAT SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NEDUVATHOOR, NEELESWARAM, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SRI.R.REJI, SMT.THARA THAMBAN, SRI.B.BIPIN, SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE UNIT INSPECTOR, NEDUVATHOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NEDUVATHOOR PO, KOLLAM-691506. 4. THE UNIT INSPECTOR, NEDUVATHOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, VETTIKAVALA BRANCH, KOLLAM-691 538. 5. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, KOTTARAKKARA-691 506. R1, R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.1923 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the President of the Neduvathoor Panchayat Service Co-operative Bank Limited. He has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 letter dated 31.12.2010 sent by the second respondent to him with copy to the Secretary of the Bank informing them that if no reply is received to Ext.P1 report in relation to the irregularities noticed in the report within two weeks, steps will be taken against the members of the Managing Committee and the employees of the bank. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 objections to Ext.P1 report and pass fresh orders in the matter. The main contention raised in the writ petition is that upon receipt of Ext.P1 enquiry report, Ext.P3 reply dated 30.7.2010 was personally handed over to the second respondent, but the second respondent, without even perusing Ext.P3, issued Ext.P4 communication. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the W.P(C).No.1923 of 2011 -:2:- respondents submitted on instruction that the original of Ext.P3 has not been received by the second respondent. Referring to the writ petition the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has no case that the original of Ext.P3 was sent by registered post or by local delivery and that the case set out in the writ petition is that the original of Ext.P3 was personally handed over to the second respondent, which statement, according to the learned Government Pleader, cannot be accepted in view of the seriousness of the findings in Ext.P1 report. 3. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that Ext.P3 reply was submitted upon receipt of Ext.P1 enquiry report and that it was personally handed over to the second respondent. The petitioner is the President of a co-operative society. Ext.P1 notices serious irregularities in the functioning of the society. A copy of Ext.P1 report was forwarded to the Secretary of the society along with Ext.P2 letter by registered post. The Secretary of the society having received the report by registered post, one would have expected the reply also to be sent by registered post. Apart from the ipsi dixit of the petitioner that the original of Ext.P3 was personally handed over to the second respondent there is nothing on record to substantiate the W.P(C).No.1923 of 2011 -:3:- said plea. In the ordinary course of human conduct one would have expected the petitioner and the Secretary of the society to send the original of Ext.P3 by registered post having regard to the seriousness of the findings in Ext.P1 enquiry report. I am therefore not satisfied that the petitioner has established his assertion that on behalf of the managing committee of the society Ext.P3 reply was submitted to the second respondent. In such circumstances I find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P4. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that if within one week from today the petitioner submits a reply with reference to the findings in Ext.P1 report the second respondent shall consider the same while taking a final decision in the matter. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.1923 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 25th January, 2011