IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17191 of 2010(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, CO-BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN (P.O.), PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI, SRI.A.S.SABU, SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN, SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. V.MOHAMMED AZEEM, RESIDING AT C.P.HOUSE, KAMBIL, KOLACHERRY, KANNUR-670 601. (JUNIOR ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH). R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.17191 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order of stay granted by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.85 of 2009 in ARC 109 of 2009. The case has been filed by the second respondent, who was suspended from service on 13.7.2007, alleging illegal sanction of 18 mortgage loans aggregating a total amount of Rs.1,22,50,000/-. Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued and after due enquiry, Ext.P2 report was received finding that the second respondent was guilty of the charges. The enquiry report was accepted and Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued to the second respondent directing him to show cause why he should not be removed from service. Without submitting any explanation to Ext.P4, it is alleged that the second respondent filed ARC No.109 of 2009 before the first respondent - Arbitration Court. The first respondent has passed Ext.P6 ordering stay of all further proceedings. Wpc 17191/2010 2 According to the petitioner, though the petitioner had filed counter affidavit on 18.9.2009, evidenced herein by Ext.P7 and had moved for vacating the interim order, no orders have been passed thereon, till date. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the interim order. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that under Section 69(h), the proceedings before the first respondent are not maintainable, the proper remedy of the petitioner being to file an appeal. 3. Since the petitioner has already sought for vacating the order of stay, it is not necessary to consider the issue in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Suffice it to direct the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in the matter expeditiously. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner contained in Ext.P7, to the continuance of the arbitration proceedings as well as the interim order of stay, and to pass appropriate orders on I.A.85 of 2009, after hearing all interested persons in accordance with Wpc 17191/2010 3 law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk