IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2007 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1929 OP.No. 8398 of 2000(Y) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R.V.SUDHI, SENIOR CLERK, PALLIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.760, P.O., CHERAI- 683 514, EKM DISTRICT (NOW UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION) RESIDING AT RAMADY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., EKM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PALLIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.760 P.O., CHERAI-683 514, EKM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. MANAGING COMMITTEE, PALLIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.760 P.O., CHERAI-683 514, EKM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. PRESIDENT, PALLIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 760, P.O., CHERAI-683 514, EKM. 4. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, EKM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER PUSPALATHA M.K. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 8398 of 2000 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.87/2000 DATED 11.3.2000 PASSED BYTHE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.2.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE 22 STAFF MEMBERS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THIRD RESPONDENT . EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 8.3.00 ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT PRESIDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF the REPLY DATED 10.3.00 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 13.3.00 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ------------------- O.P. 8398/2000 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2007 JUDGMENT In view of the fact that the first respondent has received notice, notices to the second and third respondents are dispensed with and the matter is treated as right. 2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of suspension issued on 11.3.2000. This Court had not issued any orders staying the order of suspension, though relief was sought for in C.M.P. 14001/2000. Order of suspension is obviously a matter to be considered by the Registrar of Soceities. I do not, therefore, find any reason to interfere with Ext.P1 at this distance of time. This petition is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice to other contentions. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge mrcs