IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 5752 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. V.RAMAYYA BHAT, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.V.RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, "ARJUNAGULI", PATLA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671124. 2. A.MAHALINGA BHAT, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.ALKKE SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, "VISHWA NILAYA", POST MADHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671124. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KASARAGOD - 671123. 2. MADHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO.C 3372, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POST MADHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN - 671124. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.5752 of 2008-I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Ext.P4 is a decision of the Joint Registrar disqualifying three persons from the committee of the second respondent bank. Petitioners are two of them. Two grounds of disqualifications are found in Ext.P4. It is found that the petitioners had not repaid certain loans availed from the bank. The second ground is that they were absent for three consecutive meetings of the committee. 2.The fact that the petitioners did not attend for three consecutive meetings is not in dispute in the writ petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that Clause 37(2)(d) of the Bye-laws, which provides for ipso facto termination of the membership in the committee, also empowers the committee to re-admit such a WP(C)5752/2008 -: 2 :- member to the committee on sufficient cause being shown for the failure to attend the three consecutive meetings. 3.In so far as the issue relating to repayment of loans is concerned, on the face of Ext.P4, there is nothing to show that the first respondent had concluded that there was a notice by the creditor society about the defaulted amounts served on the petitioners and their consequential failure to pay such amounts. The counter affidavit sworn to by the first respondent also does not show that there was such a material. Ext.P4 proceeds as if the petitioners ought to have repaid the loan within a period of 30 days of issuance of the notice of proceedings that led to Ext.P4. This is not the law. But the learned Senior Government Pleader states that the materials made available to her show that the second respondent bank had, as a matter of fact, issued notices to the petitioners notifying the default. That would depend upon how the Assistant Registrar has WP(C)5752/2008 -: 3 :- reported the matter to the first respondent. The aforesaid will show that the issues for resolution include questions of fact which may have to be considered on the basis of materials and files and the matter cannot be decided solely with reference to undisputed materials. If that be so, the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy by way of an appeal under Section 83(1)(j) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Without prejudice to that right and leaving open all issues in that regard, this writ petition is dismissed. It is further clarified that the period commencing from the institution of the writ petition till the issuance of certified copy of this judgment and three days thereafter will be excluded by the competent authority while determining any period of limitation for filing the appeal. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Sha/030608 JUDGE.