IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31500 of 2008(T)
1. JESSYMOL THOMAS, W/O. P.M. THOMAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER, THE INSPECTOR OF
4. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT EX-SERVICEMEN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :30/10/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.31500 of 2008-Y
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner seeks a direction to the first
respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4. I
have gone through that document. It appears that
the petitioner handed over a room belonging to
her to the 4th respondent society under Ext.P1
which is termed as a licence. I hasten to clarify
that this Court is not going into the quality or
nature of Ext.P1 transaction and the legal
incidents thereof. According to the petitioner,
after the term of that entrustment, and for
different other reasons, she is entitled to be
handed over the keys of that room. She has also
certain complaints regarding certain repairs,
adjustments of advance and different other issues
as reflected in Ext.P4. This is not a matter
which the Joint Registrar could consider and take
WP(C)31500/08 -: 2 :-
a decision. The petitioner is also a member of
the 4th respondent society, it is contended. The
transactions having given rise to a dispute, it
could have considered only under Section 69 of
the KCS Act, unless of course Section 11(1) of
Act 11/1965 has any effect on the transactions
evidenced by Ext.P1. At any rate, I am clear in
my mind that the Joint Registrar cannot be
permitted to act on the issue raised in Ext.P4.
He cannot, therefore, be directed to take up
Ext.P4 and consider it. The writ petition fails.
The same is accordingly dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/311008