IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 419 of 2009(M) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8170/2009 Dated 18/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- KALLETTUMKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.141, KALLETTUMKARA-PO, TRICHUR DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PRESIDENT N.K.JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), THRISSUR. BY GP SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... R.P.NO. 419 OF 2009 IN WP(C) 8170 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2009 ORDER Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society. It challenged a notice issued under Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. By judgment dated 18.3.2009, it was directed among the other things, that any application of the petitioner, pending for rectification or for sanction, including in relation to the construction of a building has to be considered before a final decision is taken on the proposed supersession proceedings. One of the grounds for supersession could be that directions to rectify have not been carried out. Therefore the question whether the society should be permitted and sanction could be accorded to carry out the rectification, is a matter on which decision has to precede any further action on the proposal to supersede. Therefore it is clarified that the third sentence in the third paragraph of the judgment dated 18.3.2009 is issued requiring the respondent to not only consider any application pending for RP 419 OF 2009 2 rectification or sanction, but also to express and issue the decision on the request for rectification and sanction before further proceeding with the proposed supersession. Therefore, on consideration of the petitioner's application for rectification or for sanction, an order shall be issued disclosing the decision of the respondent following such consideration. Only after giving the petitioner the communication of such decision, would the respondent be entitled to further proceed with any action on the basis of the notice which was impugned in the writ petition. The request of the petitioner for time to remove ineligible members would be considered and appropriately ordered by the respondent. RP ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/26/5