IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2509 of 2010(K)
1. RAJU K.MATHEWS, ADVOCATE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KREALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIE
4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERAITVE
5. SMT.PUSHKALA, THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
6. INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
7. THE KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES'
8. ADV.GEORGE CHERIAN,43,1357,ST.BENEDICT,
9. ADV.P.K.SANTHAMMA, DIRECTOR, THE
10. ADV.M.R.NANDA KUMAR, -DO-
11. ADV.ABDUL SALAM .K.A. -DO-
12. ADV.ABOOBACKER, M.K. -DO-
13. ADV.BINDU SREEKUMAR -DO-
14. ADV.GEORGE MECHERIL, -DO-
15. ADV.PAULSON C.VARGHESE, -DO-
16. ADV.C.E.UNNIKIRSHNAN, -DO-
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :02/12/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
-------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 2509 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the
respondents are not considering the request made by the
petitioner through Ext.P2 for exercising powers under
Section 65(1)(d) of the Co-operative Societies Act.
According to the petitioner the Board of Directors of the
7th respondent Society who are respondents No.8 to 16
herein, have committed gross irregularity in suppressing
the real accounts of the 7th respondent society, with
respect to the financial year 2008-09. The petitioner had
approached the first respondent seeking action on the
basis of the above said allegations. But it is the complaint
that, inspite of Ext.P2 request submitted as early in
January, 2009, no action as contemplated under Section
65 (1) (d) was initiated.
2. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents 1 to 4 as well as the counsel appearing for
2
WP(C) No. 2509/2010
the 7th respondent submitted that, they have no objection in
the matter being considered by the 3rd respondent who is
the competent authority. Counsels representing other
respondents are also conceding the above stand. It is
submitted by learned Government Pleader that Ext.P2 will
be considered by the 3rd respondent and a decision thereof
will be taken in accordance with law. The said submission
is recorded.
3. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition
is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider
Ext.P2 representation with appropriate notice to the
petitioner and all other persons concerned and to take a
decision thereof as early as possible at any rate within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc