IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32672 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SAPHAL KRISHNA, THEKKECHOVELICKAKATHU, K.R.PURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN-688 556. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, SRI.S.A.ANAND. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ALAPPUZNA, PIN-688 001. 2. MC.DOWELL AND U.B.EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.A-778, VARANAD P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN-688 543, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE PRESIDENT, MC.DOWELL AND U.B.EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.A-778, VARANAD P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN-688 543. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.32672 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the nephew of one Sri.B.Biju who died in harness on 31.3.2006 while working as Salesman under the second respondent -society. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted an application by virtue of the provisions under Rule 188A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules' only) for appointment under the dying-in- harness scheme before the second respondent. Later, as per Ext.P1, the first respondent directed the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme in terms of the provisions under Rule 188A of the Rules. In fact, even prior to the issuance of Ext.P1 based on the application of the petitioner, the matter was taken up for consideration by the second respondent and passed Ext.P2 resolution not to grant appointment to the petitioner under the dying-in-harness scheme. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the first respondent through Ext.P3 under Rule 176 of the Rules. Ext.P3 is still pending before the first respondent. W.P.(C) NO.32672/2010 2 2. Considering the fact that Ext.P3 petition is filed under Rule 176 of the Rules, I do not propose to consider the contentions on merits at this stage. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and also the second respondent. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.32672/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.32672/2010 4