IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 20788 of 2011(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. THE MARANALLOOR KSHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD., NO.3994, PONGUMMOODU, KUVALASSERY.P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, MARANALLOOR KSHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD., NO.3994, PONGUMMOODU, KUVALASSERY.P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. S.VIJAYAKUMARAN, THOTTARIKATHU VEEDU, KODANNUR, KUVALASSERY.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 032. 2. THE LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 133. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 20788/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA. P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P1 COMPLAINT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/05/2011 OF THE LOK AYUKTA. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE LOK AYUKTA DIRECTING THE 2ND PETITIONER TO APPEAR IN PERSON. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20788 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, an order passed by the 2nd respondent in complaint 361/10. The complaint was filed by the first respondent, stating that he had deposited an amount of Rs.1 lakh with the petitioner as fixed deposit and that despite making requests the amount was not returned. 2. Before the 2nd respondent the contention raised by the petitioner was that deposit made by the first respondent was converted into shares. This contention was considered and Lok Ayuktha held that the petitioner did not substantiate its contention that the first respondent has made any request for conversion of its fixed deposit into shares and that even application allegedly made by the first respondent was not produced. That apart it was also found that as per clause 9(6) of the bye-law a person like the first W.P.(C) No. 20788 OF 2011 :2 : respondent was ineligible to become a member to hold shares of the petitioner/society and on that basis, Ext.P3 order was passed. In this writ petition, this court passed order dated 29.7.2010 directing the petitioner to produce the application made by the first respondent for converting his deposit into shares. Despite two opportunities given the application has not been produced even now. In such circumstances there is absolutely no reason to conclude that the reasonings of the 2nd respondent is erroneous for any reason which warrants interference in a writ petition. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge