IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16066 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PERUMPAZHUTHOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.T.262, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR, SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VENPAKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.T.155, VENPAKAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S. MUHAMMED HASHIM R2 BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SRI.V.VIJULAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.16066 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative Service Bank registered in the year, 1964. The Bank is working well and the present working capital of the petitioner is Rupees Five Crores. The petitioner has substantial amounts as deposits and about Rupees Four Crores have been given as loan. The second respondent is another Co-operative Bank. In the year 1991, the first respondent, after hearing the officials of the petitioner as well as the second respondent, issued an order demarcating the areas of operation of both the Societies. Accordingly, a small portion of Perumpazhuthoor Panchayat coming within the area of operation of the petitioner Bank was given to the second respondent. The areas of operation of the Banks have been demarcated as per Ext.P1. Both the petitioner as well as the second respondent agrees that they are functioning within their respective areas of operation as demarcated by Ext.P1. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining that the Wpc 16066/2010 2 first respondent is about to sanction a new Branch to the second respondent in the Athazhamangalam ward within the area of operation of the petitioner, within 100 metres of the petitioner's Branch which has been functioning from the year 1986 onwards. It is also alleged that the Branch is going to be sanctioned without hearing the petitioner. On coming to know of the proposal, the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and a copy of the recommendation submitted by the Assistant Registrar for the purpose of starting a Branch was obtained, which is Ext.P2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent has no authority to sanction an additional Branch to the second respondent in violation of Ext.P1. 3. Adv.Mr.R.T.Pradeep appears for the second respondent Bank and submits that the proposed Branch of the second respondent is to be located at Athazhamangalam, a place within the area of operation of the second respondent Bank as per Ext.P1. The counsel has no objection to a direction being issued to the first respondent to sanction a new Branch only in accordance with the area of demarcation stipulated in Ext.P1. Wpc 16066/2010 3 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that a new Branch is sanctioned only after an inspection of the site is conducted by the Joint Registrar or an Officer authorised by him and after ascertaining whether the place is within the area of operation of a particular society. It is submitted that all interested parties would also be heard before a final decision is taken. According to the Government Pleader, a joint inspection was scheduled by the first respondent on 29.5.2010, but was not conducted for the reason that this writ petition was pending. It is submitted that a fresh inspection would therefore be scheduled and conducted, all interested parties including the petitioner would be heard and only thereafter, a decision would be taken. 5. In view of the fact that the proposal for sanctioning an additional Branch to the second respondent is under the active consideration of the first respondent, I do not think it necessary to grant any further orders in this writ petition. Suffice it to direct that the sanction of a new Branch shall be in strict compliance with the area of operation demarcated by Ext.P1, which is accepted by both the petitioner as well as the second respondent. Wpc 16066/2010 4 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the request of the second respondent and to sanction a Branch only in accordance with the area of demarcation that is stipulated in Ext.P1, after hearing all interested parties. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk