IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25930 of 2006(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.G.MATHEW, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.GHEEVARHGHESE, UDAYAPURAM, KARIMTHOTTUVA, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.RAMESH KUMAR SMT.ANNAMMA ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KARIMTHOTTUVA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.2594, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARIMTHOTTUVA, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) & SRI.S.SHARAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.25930/2006 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWRD IN ARC NO.163/05 DATED 1.3.06 PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.19/2000 DATED 26.4.2000 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM DATED 2.9.2006 ATTEMPTED TO BE FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CO- OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25930 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JULY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P1 order of the Arbitrator dated 1.3.2006, a copy of which was stated to be served on him on 16.3.2006. He presented Exhibit P3 revision before the Tribunal on 2.9.2006. The Tribunal did not receive the revision or number it. In the above background, this writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs which he has sought against Exhibit P1 in Exhibit P3. The writ petition happened to be referred to the Division Bench on the ground that there is conflict between the two decisions of this Court in Thajuddin v. Secretary, Coastal Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (2004(1) KLT 909) and Sarojini Amma v. Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005 (3) KLT 655). The point that was considered in those writ petitions was, what should be the reasonable time limit, within which an aggrieved party should file a revision under Section 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. We notice that in both the decisions, the principle laid down is that the revision should be filed within a reasonable time limit. If W.P.(C)No.25930/06 -2- there is any delay, the same has to be explained in the revision memorandum itself. This is the principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Moideen Koya v. Kunhammed Haji (1999 (2) KLT 646) while interpreting Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, wherein a revision is provided without prescribing any time limit for invoking the said remedy. So, there is no conflict between the above two decisions. Now, coming to the facts of the case, we feel that the Tribunal should receive Exhibit P3, number it and dispose of the same in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. If the Tribunal feels that the revision is filed with unreasonable delay and the delay is not properly explained, it will be free to deal with the revision accordingly. The contentions of the petitioner on this point are kept open. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn