IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18961 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.BABURAJAN PILLA, THE PRESIDENT CHIRAKKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1894, CHIRAKKARA P.O., PIN-691 578, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOLLAM. 3. CHIRAKKARA THAZHAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4286, CHIRAKKARA THAZHAM, CHIRAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 578, REPRESENTED BY THE LIQUIDATOR. 4. NEDUNGOLAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (LTD.) NO.2845, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 574. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.18961 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the President of a Co-operative Bank, which was originally established as a multi purpose co-operative society. According to the petitioner, a portion of the area of operation of the predecessor society of the petitioner bank was carved out to form the third respondent, society. The third respondent later ceased to function and the same has been ordered to be liquidated. In view of the fact that the third respondent society is facing liquidation, the claim of the petitioner bank for the area of operation that was given to the third respondent society was to be reconsidered. For the purpose, appropriate amendments were also introduced by the petitioner bank. 2. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent bank staked a claim for the very same area. For the purpose, they have also introduced amendments to their by laws. According to the petitioner, it was because no decision was taken on the claim of the petitioner within a reasonable time that the present situation has arisen. On 19.6.2010, a Wpc 18961/2010 2 General Body of the petitioner bank was conducted in which necessary amendments to the by laws of the bank have been passed. On 20.6.2010, a general body of the fourth respondent bank has also passed necessary amendments to their by laws staking a claim to the disputed area of operation. The amendments that are passed have to be registered with the second respondent under Section 12 of the Co- operative Societies Act, 1969. The petitioner prays for a consideration of his objections and claims also while taking a decision on whether to register the amendments that are passed by the fourth respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader has no objection to the grant of the above prayer. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to consider his objections or claims before any decision is taken regarding the claim of the fourth respondent to the area of operation of the third respondent bank. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk