IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37524 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.C.MUHAMMED, KANNAMCHATH HOUSE, VALLAPPUZHA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. T.V.HARIDASA WARRIOR, THALAMUDI WARRIOM, KULUKKALLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. KRISHNA PRASAD, VILLATHUPADY HOUSE, KULIKKALLOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES(G), PALAKKAD, PIN-679001. 2. VALLAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.NO.F.1207, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, NELLAYA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679335. R1 BY G.P.SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.37524 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 20th December, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioners raised in this writ petition pertains to the inaction on the part of the first respondent on the enquiry report submitted under section 66(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short `the Act') in terms of Rule 66(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short `the Rules') and failure to take appropriate action on Exts.P8 and P9. The contention of the petitioners is that alleging malpractices and mismanagement by the previous committee an enquiry was ordered and Ext.P1 report has been submitted in terms of section 66(2) of the Act. It is contended that in the light of the decisions of this Court in Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar (2009 (4) KLT 378) and State of Kerala v. Aravindakshan Nair (2010 (3) KLT 11) the first respondent is bound to take action in terms of Rule 66(5) of the Rules. As already noticed hereinbefore, the other grievance of the petitioners is against the resolution passed by the managing committee of the second respondent. According to the petitioners, the said resolution has been passed in blatant violation of the provisions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules and WP(C).No.37524/2010 2 therefore, they requested the first respondent to rescind the resolution in terms of section 176 of the Rules. The petitioners have submitted Exts.P5, P8 and P9 petitions before the first respondent for that purpose. They are still pending consideration. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that alleging inaction on the part of the first respondent in considering the aforesaid petitions that this writ petition has been filed. 2. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the second respondent. Evidently, in the light of the decisions of this Court referred to above, the first respondent is bound to take action on the report submitted to him under section 66(2) of the Act in terms of Rule 66(5) of the Rules. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 and take appropriate actions thereon in accordance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules with notice to the second respondent. 3. The grievance of the petitioners ventilated as per Exts.P8 and P9 pertains to initiation of selection process for the purpose of appointment to the post of Peon under the second respondent alleging violation of the relevant circulars issued by the Registrar. The petitioners have already approached the first respondent through Exts.P8 and P9 in terms of Rule 176 of the Rules to rescind the resolution passed by the WP(C).No.37524/2010 3 second respondent for the aforesaid purpose. Since Exts.P8 and P9 filed in terms of Rule 176 of the Rules are pending before the first respondent, the first respondent is bound to take appropriate action thereon. In the said circumstances, there will be a further direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P9 in accordance with law, expeditiously, with notice to the petitioners, the second respondent and the other persons who are likely to be affected. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as to the merits of the contentions on the above matters. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge