IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 2878 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28360/2007 Dated 03/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- P.SUDHA, PEON (UNDER SUSPENSION), THE AMBALAPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. F-1512. AMBALAPARA P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS ------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PALAKKAD. 2. THE AMBALAPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1-1512, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.AMBALAPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.BENNY GERVASIS R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.A.No.2878 of 2007 ======================== Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. She was placed under suspension by her employer, the second respondent - Society by Ext.P2 order. Feeling aggrieved, she filed Ext.P3 representation before the Joint Registrar. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs; "(i) call for the records leading to the passing of Ext.P2 order passed by the second respondent and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction; (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider on merit Exts.P1 and P3 and pass orders on the same after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being WA 2878/07 -: 2 :- heard;" The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition taking note of the remedy available to the petitioner under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Judge should have granted the second prayer. The court should have directed the Joint Registrar to consider Ext.P3 representation. Upon instructions, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P3 is received and pending before the first respondent and the same will be heard and disposed of expeditiously. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent also. Though the prayer to dispose of Ext.P3 dated 6.9.2007 in the Writ Petition filed on 15.9.2007 may be premature, we notice that even after the lapse of two months, the said representation remains undisposed of and therefore, we direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and the second respondent, within one WA 2878/07 -: 3 :- month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if so far it was not disposed of. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 3/1