IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 603 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16768/2007 Dated 30/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- VADAKKE ANGADI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.A-705, PULINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. SCARIA JOSEPH, KARAKKASSERY HOUSE, KANNADY P.O., PULINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY G.P.SRI.K. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.603 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The writ petitioner is the appellant. The respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P7 order issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alappuzha, directing the appellant to implement a decision taken in the Co-operative Adalath on 28.6.2004. When the said direction was not implemented, the 1st respondent herein filed W.P.(C) No.22932/2004. This Court passed Ext.P8 interim order in that writ petition directing to implement the directions in Ext.P7. The said order was passed on 9.3.2006. On 14.3.2007, this Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the interim order dated 9.3.2006. Thereafter, contempt proceedings were initiated for not obeying the directions in that judgment. The contempt application is still pending. 3. If the writ petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P7, it should W.A.NO.603/08 . 2 have challenged it immediately after it was passed or atleast when the writ petition was filed before this Court seeking implementation of that order. So, the present challenge to Ext.P7 is highly belated. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, this appeal also fails and it is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl