IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20842 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ THE PRESIDENT, CHAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD., NO. 1514, CHETTACHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,(GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20842 OF 2009 (A) ===================== Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the prayer sought for is to quash Ext.P11 and to declare that Ext.P11 is vitiated by illegalities, arbitrariness, political influence and issued with a pre-decision to remove the committee of the Chayam Service Co-operative Bank Limited. 2. Petitioner states that by Ext.P2 order dated 23/6/05 issued by the respondent, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies was ordered to conduct an enquiry under Section 66 of the Co-operative Societies Act. That order was passed acting on a complaint made by one of the members by name Abdul Karim. In implementation of Ext.P2, Ext.P1 order was issued by the Assistant Registrar, appointing the Unit Inspector, Vithura as the enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry under Section 66 of the Act and submit a report. It is stated that enquiry was conducted and Ext.P3 report was submitted without any finding that any irregularity was committed on the issues covered by Exts.P1 and P2. 3. Again, Ext.P4 order was issued on 4/7/08 directing an WPC 20842/09 :2 : enquiry to be conducted under Section 65. Petitioner submits that this order was also passed based on a complaint made by Sri.Abdul Karim referred to above and that the allegations were the same as those contained in Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P4 was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.22779/08, which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing that a copy of the report relied on in Ext.P4 be given to the petitioner and the petitioner be allowed to file objections. It was further directed that the petitioner shall be heard on all issues and a decision shall be taken. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P6 report and a copy of the complaint filed by Sri.Abdul Karim were given to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted Ext.P7 explanation. However, according to him, without considering the issue as directed in Ext.P5, by Ext.P8 order, respondent ordered the enquiry as ordered in Ext.P4. Ext.P8 was again challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.85/09, which was closed by Ext.P9 judgment. It is stated that again enclosing Ext.P11 report submitted pursuant to Ext.P8, Ext.P10 notice has been issued under Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, which is under challenge in this writ WPC 20842/09 :3 : petition. Petitioner submits that Ext.P11 and the steps now initiated are all unsustainable and the exercise is to somehow supersede the elected committee of the society. 5. In my view, this writ petition is premature. Ext.P10 cannot be said as one passed without jurisdiction. In such a case, when follow up action is initiated by issuing Ext.P11 notice under Section 32 of the Act, the course open to the petitioner is to file his objections to the notice and contest the matter before the respondent himself and if the final outcome is adverse, to challenge those proceedings. Therefore, the challenge raised to Exts.P10 or P11 is premature and the petitioner cannot be granted the relief sought for. 6. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the motive is only to oust the elected committee, if the ultimate order that is passed by the respondent is adverse to them, the respondent should be directed to serve a copy and also not to implement the order for a short period in order to enable him to work out his remedies. In support of this prayer, counsel made reference to the judgment of the Division Bench in WA No.1967/07. WPC 20842/09 :4 : 7. However, the learned Government Pleader at this stage made available a copy of the Division Bench judgment in WA 1239/09 rendered on 2nd of July, 2009, where dealing with an identical situation, a Division Bench held that this Court will not be justified in passing such an order. A reading of the judgment in WA No.1239/09 also show that it was after following the Apex Court judgments and the judgment of this Court in Narayanan Nair v. Vaikom Palliprathusserry Service Co-operative Bank (2003(2) KLT 44) that the said judgment has been rendered by the Division Bench. On going through the judgment in WA No.1967/07 relied on by the counsel for the petitioner and the judgment in WA 1239/09 relied on by the learned Government Pleader, I am inclined to think that the view taken by the Division Bench in WA No.1239/09 is liable to be followed as a binding precedent. Therefore, this relief also cannot be granted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp