IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24623 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.JAYAPRAKASH, PRESIDENT, NADAKKAL SERVICE CO.OP.BANK LTD.NO.1874, KALLUVATHUKKAL PO., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO.OP.DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGISTRAR OF CO.OP.SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR, CO.OP.SOCIETIES KOLLAM. 4. SECRETARY, ELAMKULAM, SERVICE NO.1874 CO.OP.BANK, ELAMKULAM, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM. R1TOR3-BY SR.G.P.SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.24623 OF 2008-F ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. Notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with preserving its right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. Petitioner is the President of a Service Co-operative Bank. The fourth respondent is another Service Co-operative Bank. The petitioner states that his society is aggrieved by the fourth respondent opening an extension counter very close to the head office of the petitioner's society. It does not appear that there is any objectionable overlapping while granting registration in terms of Section 7(1) of the KCS Act. The complaint is only that the operation of extension counter by the fourth respondent in the proximity in which it is, to the head office of the petitioner's bank, would result in unhealthy WPC.NO.24623/08 . 2 competition. The petitioner also states that different standards are being adopted in the matter of approval of extension counters and if the sanction granted to the fourth respondent is to be taken as a sustainable yardstick, the petitioner's bank is also entitled to such operational facility of extension counters near to the branches or head office of the fourth respondent, however, within the area of operation of the petitioner's bank. 3. In the aforesaid scenario, it is pointed out that there are no circulars issued by the Registrar, governing the issue of any distance limits to be maintained regarding proximity of branch or branches. I find none in the KCS Act and the Rules. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot be ignored. Without expressing anything on merit, the second respondent, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, is directed to give the petitioner's society an opportunity of hearing and to consider the issue from its different angles and to take such decision as may be just and appropriate. The second WPC.NO.24623/08 . 3 respondent is specifically directed to do so because it may involve consideration for a decision at the highest level in the co-operative establishment. Needless to say, the fourth respondent and any person entitled to be heard would also be heard in that regard. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl