IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25085 of 2011(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.A.ROCKY, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, VADAKKETHALA HOUSE, VALARKAVU, NADATHARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. BANERJI MEMORIAL CLUB, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 680 003. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRISSUR PIN 680003. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25085 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN SA. 766 OF 1997 DT.19.4.2010. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT FOR RE-ADMISSION, DT.16.3.2011. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT.21.3.2011. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.28.8.2011- PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE BY-LAW OF THE IST RESPONDENT SOCIETY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE. ln ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).25085/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P3 has been issued by the first respondent imposing certain conditions for re-admission of the petitioner as a Life Member in the Club. According to the petitioner, the stand taken in Ext.P3 is against the bye-laws of the Club. Therefore, he filed Ext.P4 before the second respondent seeking his intervention. It is complaining of inaction on Ext.P4, the writ petition is filed. 2. Even if the allegations contained in the writ petition are accepted, petitioner has not been able to show me that any provision in the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, conferring a power on the second respondent to examine the grievance highlighted in Ext.P4. In such circumstances, this Court is not in a position to consider the request of the petitioner to direct the second respondent to deal with Ext.P4. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs