IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17252 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NATTAKOM CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NO.86, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.KISHOR B. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. NATTAKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO.3839, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 012, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.17252 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank started in the year, 1919 with whole of Nattakom Village as its area of operation. The petitioner objected to the proposal for giving permission to the first respondent Bank to open a Branch at Pallom kara. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court by filing WP(C) No.20125 of 2009, complaining that his objections were not being considered. The said petition was disposed of on the basis of a submission made on behalf of the Joint Registrar that no application for starting a Branch as alleged by the petitioner had been received by him. Later on, the Joint Registrar summoned the petitioner for a hearing and after the hearing, rejected the objections that were submitted. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of the objections in appeal before the Government. The appeal was admitted and the same is pending. 2. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application for stay of further proceedings. However, the same was Wpc 17252/2010 2 dismissed without hearing the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this court again by filing WP(C) 4523 of 2010. As per Ext.P3 judgment dated 18.2.2010, the same was allowed, setting aside the order of the Government dismissing the petitioner's application for stay and directing a fresh consideration of the stay petition, after hearing the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was heard and an order has been passed by the third respondent dismissing the stay petition. This writ petition is filed challenging the said order, which is Ext.P4. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P4 is unsustainable for the reason that since the appeal is pending consideration of the third respondent, there is no justification for dismissing the application for stay, which is absolutely necessary for ensuring that the parties maintain the status quo during the pendency of the appeal. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader on the other hand submits that the appeal itself is ripe for hearing and can be considered and disposed of on merits within a period of two months. 5. In view of the fact that the appeal itself could be disposed of Wpc 17252/2010 3 within a period of two months, it is sufficient that the appeal is directed to be disposed of within the said time frame. 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk