IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33681 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.PRADEEPKUMAR, HEAVY DUTY DRIVER, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI-22. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.SAMSON AROOJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM. 2. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD H.O., THRIKKAKKARA, KAKKANAD.P.O, KOCHI-30. 3. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY REGISTRAR- (ADMN-II) KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-22. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, S.C. R3 BY ADV.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHA PILLAI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.33681 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a debtor of the second respondent. Ext.P1 shows that there was an arbitration case in 1993 and an execution proceedings in 1998. This has now reached the office of the third respondent employer of the petitioner on the basis of an order of attachment of salary. There is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in that. The third respondent has, accordingly, issued Ext.P1, effecting recovery at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. This Court need not interfere with such proceedings because the petitioner's counsel states that the petitioner will be able to ensure that the entire transaction is wiped off. This he may do. But for that purpose, recovery following Ext.P1 need not be suspended having regard to the time lag that is gone through after the initiation of the arbitration proceedings, which is about 15 years. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Joint Registrar, it is for him to move the Joint Registrar for WPC.33681/08 Page numbers any further orders since he says that he did not have notice of those proceedings. At any rate, I do not find any ground for this Court to entertain this writ petition at writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed, leaving open the remedy, if any, that may be available to the petitioner against the decision of the Joint Registrar before the appropriate statutory authority, including the Joint Registrar, in accordance with law. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.