Perumpazhuthoor Agricultural … vs The State Of Kerala on 22 June, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17018 of 2010(B)


1. PERUMPAZHUTHOOR AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF

4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :22/06/2010

 O R D E R
                     K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
                      ...........................................
                     WP(C).NO.17018 OF 2010
                      ............................................
           DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2010

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, has

approached this court, challenging the denial of permission to open a

Branch at Anappara, which is within the geographical/territorial limits

assigned to the society by its approved by laws. According to the

petitioner, though the authorities recommended the Branch initially,

ultimately the application was turned down by Ext.P5. Though the

petitioner had challenged Ext.P5 before the Government, by Ext.P6, the

appellate authority has confirmed Ext.P5. The petitioner challenges

Ext.P6 in these proceedings.

2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per Ext.P5,

what is stated is that separate rules and regulations regarding the

sanction of similar branches for conducting credit business has not

been issued by the authorities and therefore the request of the petitioner

is temporarily deferred. However in Ext.P6, it is pointed out that

various other factors including additional materials in the form of a

Wpc 17018/2010 2

report submitted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies have been

referred to, without giving a copy thereof, to the petitioner. Therefore,

the petitioner submits that Exts.P5 and P6 are unsustainable.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions,

submits that what the petitioner wanted to do was to engage in credit

business, as is evident from Ext.P2, which was not permissible in law.

It is further pointed out that there was another bank, Panachamoodu

Service Co-operative Bank operating in the area and that there was no

need for the petitioner bank to open a new branch conducting the very

same operations. It is further pointed out that the area of operation of

the petitioner’s society comes within the area of this service co-

operative bank and that if the petitioner were permitted to open a new

branch, it would affect the financial stability of the other banks

conducting operations in the area. Therefore, it is submitted that Ext.P6

does not call for any interference.

4. A reading of Exts.P5 and P6 do not show that any additional

grounds have been incorporated in Ext.P6 as contended by the counsel

for the petitioner. What is stated in Ext.P6 is that the object of the

Wpc 17018/2010 3

petitioner’s society in opening a branch at Anappara is to conduct credit

business and that there are no rules permitting the opening of a branch

for the said purpose alone. It is also stated in Ext.P5 that the petitioner’s

application was being deferred. However in Ext.P6, the appellate

authority has gone into the matter in greater detail and has taken into

account all the facts and circumstances that are existing. Thereafter, it

is on a detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances that Ext.P6

proceedings have been upheld. The considerations in Ext.P6 are all

relevant and material and justifying the conclusions that are arrived at

by the appellate authority. It is contended by the counsel for the

petitioner that the report of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has

been relied on without putting the petitioner to notice of the same. I

find that a personal hearing was conducted on 7.1.2010 which was

attended both by the counsel for the appellant as well as the

representative of the Joint Registrar. Therefore, it is clear that Ext.P6

was preceded by a personal hearing. Such personal hearing would

certainly include a reference to the documents and other materials

relied on by both parties. I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P6. I also

Wpc 17018/2010 4

notice that the application of the petitioner being declined only

temporarily, it is open to the petitioner to move afresh, if there are any

change in circumstances that justify the same. This writ petition fails. It

is accordingly dismissed.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

lgk