IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P.(C).No.7245 of 2008(K) --------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER:- --------------------- M.V.SASIKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.VELUPILLAI, ANCHUTHUNDIL VEEDU, MANAKKARA, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.D.SHAJAN SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOLLAM. 3. THE SASTHAMCOTTA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.Q 373, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.G.ANEETHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- W.P.(C).NO.7245 OF 2008-K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- -------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.2.2.2008 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S WIFE RAJESWARI AMMA. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 28.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S WIFE RAJESWARI AMMA. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.R.B.798/08 DTD.27/2/2008 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- ---------------------------------------- EXT.R2(1) - TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED NOTICE SENT BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER ON 18.6.2007. EXT.R2(2) - TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOLWEDGEMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER ON 20.6.2007. EXT.R2(3) - TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR ON 20.6.2007. EXT.R2(4) - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CRB 798/08 DATED 4.2.2008. EXT.R2(5) - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 15.2.2008. EXT.R2(6) - TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE HEAD POST OFFICE, KOLLAM ON 27.2.2008. - TRUE COPY - Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7245 of 2008-K ----------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner's wife Rajeswari Amma availed a cash credit facility from the Sasthamcotta Branch of the Kollam District Co-operative Bank for a period of one year. No amount was repaid in that account within the period. Going by Exhibit P3, different notices were issued to the parties. We are concerned only with a notice stated to have been delivered to the petitioner on 20.06.2007. On the allegation that there was no repayment even within the statutory period following that notice, the competent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act invoked proceedings and issued notice to disqualify the petitioner from being a member of the Committee of the 3rd respondent Co-operative Bank. Going by Exhibit P3, the petitioner filed a reply admitting the existence of the liability, but stating that it will be cleared off before 29.02.2008. It is demonstrated through Exhibits P1 and P2 that on 2.2.2008, the Sasthamcotta Branch of the Kollam District Co-operative W.P.(C).No.7245 of 2008 - 2 - Bank had conceded to the petitioner's request for being permitted to pay off the loan by 29.02.2008 by availing the facility of certain Circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. However, the fact remains that the notice aforesaid, issued by the creditor - 3rd respondent, was found to have been delivered to the petitioner on 20.06.2007 and that the repayment was not made within a period of three months therefrom. The fact that no repayment was made before Exhibit P2 dated 28.02.2008 is beyond dispute. The question whether a notice was served on the petitioner on 20.06.2007, as found against in Exhibit P3, has also to be answered in favour of respondents 1 and 2 in view of the production of Exhibit R2(1) and Exhibit R2(2), which shows that the postal article, as per Exhibit R2(2) was delivered to the petitioner on 20.06.2007. Though the petitioner disputes the signature shown in Exhibit R2(2), I am not inclined to accept that version in preference to the official version, supported by the postal articles. Exhibit R2(1) shows the demand made to the petitioner also which, going by the W.P.(C).No.7245 of 2008 - 3 - counter affidavit, was the demand that was served as evidenced by Exhibit R2(2). The materials, on the basis of which the impugned Exhibit P3 has been issued, were on the basis of appropriate enquiry through the competent subordinate officers as is stated in Exhibit P3 and I do not find any ground to come to a different conclusion on facts and evidence, particularly, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan Judge vku/-