Kerala High Court
WA/1684/2012 of PRESIDENT AASARIKKAD GRAMEENA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WA. No. 1684 of 2012 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.15287/2012 DATED 06-08-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SIRI JAGAN &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WA. No. 1684 of 2012 ()
-----------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.15287/2012 DATED 06-08-2012
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:----------------------
1. PRESIDENT, AASARIKKAD GRAMEENA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.R.1019, P.O.AASARIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. NO.R.1019, P.O.AASARIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. AASARIKKAD GRAMEENA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
NO.R.1019, P.O.AASARIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS. SRI. P. RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SRI. M.R. SABU
SMT. APARNA RAJAN
SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) AYYANTHOL, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680002. AYYANTHOL, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680002.
2. PEECHI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 935, PEECHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680653. PEECHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680653.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. D. SOMASUNDARAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA. No. 1684 of 2012 ()
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:-
ANNEXURE A1
-COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CONT. CASE (C) NO.365/12.
ANNEXURE A2-COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.C. NO.365/12 DATED 15.06.2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
sp
S.SIRI JAGAN &
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
The petitioner in WP(C) No. 15287 of 2012 is theappellant herein. The writ petition was filed challenging theorder passed by the first respondent, Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, permitting the second respondent tostart a new branch. The petitioner moved for interim ordersas well. Originally an interim order was passed. But by orderdated 6.8.2012 the earlier order was modified as follows:
“Advocate P.N.Mohanan, who appears for the 2[nd]respondent, submits that the new branch of the 2[nd] respondenthas started functioning on 25.6.2012. For the above reason, theinterim order is modified permitting the new branch of the 2[nd]respondent to function.”
The petitioner is challenging the said interim order in this writ appeal. According to the petitioner the approvalgranted by the first respondent, itself was violating theearlier orders of the court. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge went wrong in modifying the earlier impugned orderpermitting the new branch of the second respondent tofunction is the contention raised.
2. We have heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well as the counsel for the second respondent. The argument of thepetitioner appears to be that, by an earlier judgment, thiscourt directed consideration of the application for approvalfiled by the second respondent by the first respondent. Thecontention is that even before passing the said orderapproval was granted, which is in violation of the interimorders of this court. Therefore, the second respondentshould not be allowed to function the new branch is thecontention raised.
3. We are of the opinion that, insofar as the branch ofthe second respondent, which is the subject matter of thewrit petition has started functioning on 25.6.2012, the
petitioner would not in any way be benefited by interdictingthe second respondent from continuing operation of the newbranch. We are of the opinion that all the contentions raisedby the appellant can be raised in the writ petition itself.Therefore, without prejudice to that right this writ appeal isdismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE,
jm/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE