IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3192 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN,PAINKAYIL HOUSE, KODUNGA, VELLIKULANGARA.P.O,TRICHUR. BY ADV. MR.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,(GENERAL),TRICHUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,(GENERAL),MUKUNDAPURAM, IRINGALAKKUDA, TRICHUR. 3. IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, REP; BY ITS SECRETARY,IRINJALAKKUDA, TRICHUR. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,IRINJALAKKUDA AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, KODAKARA BRANCH, KODAKARA.P.O,TRICHUR. 5. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, REP; BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. R1, R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.3192 of 2009-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Notice to respondents 3 to 5 is dispensed with preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. The petitioner availed a loan from respondents 3 and 4. It appears that the transaction is primarily funded by the fifth respondent. The first respondent issued Ext.P7 directing the third respondent to give the petitioner certain deductions in the total outstandings, having regard to the factors stated in Ext.P7 relatable to the rate of interest that could be charged on the basis of circulars. The complaint of the petitioner is that Ext.P7 is not being honoured and that Ext.P9 has been issued by the third WP(C)3192/2009 -: 2 :- respondent seeking repayment of amount which is far more than what is covered by Ext.P7. That is not a matter on which this Court should interfere since if the first respondent has issued Ext.P7, it will be within his authority to see that its enforcement is also done. To enable the petitioner to move the first respondent and seek further relief against Ext.P9, it is ordered that enforcement of Ext.P9 will stand suspended for three weeks. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/120209