IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18160 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CLEETUS, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.ELUVATHINGAL JOHN, ROSE GARDENS, PERINGAVU DESOM, P.O.THIRUVAMBADI, POONKUNNAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL, SRI.N.M.MADHU. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. CHALAKUDY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.R.1087, HEAD OFFICE SOUTH CHALAKUDY, P.O.SOUTH CHALAKUDY, TRICHUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 003. 3. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R2 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.18160 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as per Exts.P1 and P2 receipts with the first respondent Bank as fixed deposits. Though the agreed rate of interest was 9.5%, it is alleged that the first respondent reduced the same to 8% unilaterally. The petitioner then demanded payment of interest at the agreed rate or for return of his amount. The first respondent refused to return the amount and also refused to pay interest at the enhanced rate. The petitioner then filed WP(C)24331 of 2008 before this court, which has been disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing the petitioner to raise his contentions in arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed Ext.P7. However, the same is kept pending, without being finally disposed of. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P9 petition for the issue of an interim direction to disburse his amount, during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. According to him, no orders have been passed on Ext.P9 also. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate orders to Wpc 18160/2010 2 consider and dispose of Ext.P9 on an early date. 2. In view of the limited relief that is sought, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. I have heard the learned senior Government Pleader also. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider Ext.P9 petition submitted 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