IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 502 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7343/2008 Dated 03/03/2008 ................................. REVIEW PETITIONER/R2 IN WPC ----------------------------------------------- THE KADANADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KADANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 1 AND 2/2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJI ABRAHAM, KAUVELIL HOUSE, PADINJATINKARA P.O., KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DT. 2. ALEYAMMA ABRAHAM, DO. DO. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM DT. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI. GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No.502/2008 in WP(C).7343/2008-Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Learned counsel takes notice for respondents 1 and 2 (writ petitioners) and the learned Senior Government Pleader takes notice for the third respondent. 2.This review petition is filed by the second respondent in the writ petition. The judgment sought to be reviewed was passed without hearing the review petitioner and preserving its remedy by way of review, if aggrieved. 3.The writ petition was filed stating that on the basis of Ext.P1 judgment, the review petitioner - creditor - bank is not extending the benefits due under Ext.P2 circular on the premise that RP502/2008 -: 2 :- Ext.P1 has become final between the parties. Since Ext.P2 is a circular issued by the Government after Ext.P1, directions were issued as per the judgment sought to be reviewed, to consider Ext.P2 circular also. 4.The review petitioner - bank takes the stand, in my view, rightly, that the different writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners before Ext.P1 were not brought to the notice of this Court and if all those materials were placed, it could have been easily seen that the writ petitioners are only trying to drag on the repayment of the loan. 5.The applicability of Ext.P2 circular is an issue on which the bank has to decide because, prima facie, the applicability of such circulars would depend upon the volition of the societies. I say this because, the so-called circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies shown to be in exercise of statutory power, in so far as RP502/2008 -: 3 :- they govern commercial transactions of societies, stand in a different footing than instructions and directions that could be issued in relation to administration of societies. Hence, without expressing finally, either way, on the binding nature of Ext.P2 circular, it is for the bank to decide whether it would abide by the terms of Ext.P2 and still further as to whether any benefit is due to the writ petitioner on its decision. At any rate, the mere pendency of the matter for consideration cannot be a ground for the writ petitioners to drag on repayment. With the aforesaid clarifications, this writ petition is closed clarifying that the writ petitioners shall pay the amounts as may be decided upon by the bank within the time limit that may be fixed by the bank. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/020608