IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3276 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- THRIKKALATHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NO.145, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRIKKALATHUR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ERNAKULAM. 3. KERALA STATE RUBBER CO-OPERATIVE LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RUBCO, K.V.R. TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, MAHATMA MANDIR JUNCTION, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR R3 BY ADV. MR. C.P. MOHAMMED NIAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.3276 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The petitioner has approached this court complaining that the second respondent is not passing an award in R.P.44 of 2008 that is pending before the said authority, though there has been a direction by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to do so within six months, in 2008. The petitioner had made a fixed deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- with the third respondent on 7.3.2002 with the object of helping the said authority to tide over financial difficulties. Though the deposit had matured, third respondent did not refund the amount as promised. Therefore, the bank filed a revision petition on 12.12.2007 as R.P.44 of 2008 before the Registrar of Co- operative Societies. The same has been forwarded by the Registrar to the second respondent, who is to decide the matter. It is submitted that as per Ext.P10, the second respondent was directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months. However, no orders have been passed on the same till date. Wpc 3276/2010 2 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, it has been admitted by the third respondent that the amount as claimed is payable to the petitioner. Though the pleadings are complete and there is no difficulty for passing an award on the next posting date itself, the proceedings are being dragged on. According to the counsel, the matter now stands posted to 24.2.2010 on which date, an award could be passed. 3. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the second respondent is an authority with lot of other official work and it is due to the pressure of work that final orders have not been passed on the petition till date. However, he assures that orders will be passed thereon expeditiously. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider R.P.44 of 2008, in accordance with law, and to pass an award thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk