High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
SAJIKUMAR.K.C., KATTANAM HOUSE v. THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK - WA No. 24 of 2007  RD-KL 621 (9 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWA No. 24 of 2007()
1. SAJIKUMAR.K.C., KATTANAM HOUSE,
1. THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
O R D E R
(V.K.BALI, C.J. & M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)W.A.No.24 of 2007
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2007
Ramachandran, J:W.P.(C).No.24173 of 2006, filed by a Co-operative institution, although had been disposed of, at the stage of admission, by judgment dated 27-10-2006, nevertheless the impugned order had been set aside with consequential direction to the first respondent to consider the application filed by them (Ext.P5) de novo. The petitioner-Bank had sought leave of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pathanamthitta to purchase a new vehicle. The first respondent, by Ext.P9 order dated 19-08-2006, had rejected the request, holding that the resolution passed by the petitionerBank on the subject and the application of the General Manager for formal permission required to be rejected.
2. The petitionerBank had contended that the old unserviceable vehicle had already been disposed of. The institution had a deposit of more than Rs.100 crores and it had 15 branches suggesting that it was a major institution. [WA No.24 of 2007] -2- Non-availability of a vehicle seriously affected its affairs. It appears that one Sajikumar had made a complaint to the Joint Registrar to the effect that the resolution, referred to earlier, was not in the better interest of the Bank and the steps for purchase of a new vehicle had been interdicted. The Joint Registrar had heard the version of Sri.Sajikumar along with the application of the Bank.
3. In the writ petition filed by the Bank, it appears that by way of abundant caution Sri.Sajikumar had been shown as the second respondent, but the Court in its discretion had heard the learned Government Pleader alone, representing the first respondent, and had finally disposed of the petition. Sri.Sajikumar feeling aggrieved had filed a Review Petition as R.P.No.1016 of 2006, However, the learned single Judge held that a Review Petition cannot be equated with an appeal or re-hearing of the matter. It had been held that there was no ground made out for a review. This writ appeal has come to be filed in this context.
4. We do not think the appellant is on firm grounds in challenging the judgment. At the most, he was a formal party and the Joint Registrar was examining the request made by the General Manager of the Bank. It was looking into the text of a resolution passed by a Co-operative institution. The circumstance that a complaint had been forwarded by the appellant had been taken notice of by the Joint Registrar and he too had been afforded an [WA No.24 of 2007] -3- opportunity of hearing, but that cannot be equated to a circumstance that he was a necessary party to the proceedings or had independent rights emanating from the proceedings. In fact, complaints submitted by individuals are not ordinarily to entertained by the Joint Registrar and it was only a courtesy shown to the appellant herein, and beyond this it was not possible to recognise him as a party to the proceedings. The learned Judge was therefore justified in disposing of the matter on merit, after hearing the Government Pleader. Also what is directed is a fresh look into the matter.
5. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- V.K.BALI (CHIEF JUSTICE) Sd/- M.RAMACHANDRAN
(JUDGE)mks/ - True Copy - P.S. to Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.