IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13546 of 2010(P)
1. AJAYAN PILLAI, AGED 40,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THANNITHODU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :23/07/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.13546 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is one of the members of the Board of
Directors of the first respondent bank. He has challenged
the action of the managing committee in making
appointments at a time when the society is incurring huge
amounts as loss. The petitioner has submitted Exts.P3 and
P4 complaints to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies voicing his grievances. He complains that no
action has been taken thereon till date. At the same time,
the bank is proceeding with the selection process. In this
writ petition, an interim order was passed on 23.4.2010
granting an interim order of stay of all further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P8 paper publication issued by the first
respondent inviting applications for the posts of Peon,
Attender and Night Watchman. Subsequently, as per
order dated 21.6.2010, the interim order has been
modified permitting the selection process to go on and
confining the order of stay to making of appointments
wpc No.13546/2010 2
alone. The said order is still in force.
2. In view of the fact that the complaints of the
petitioner are pending before the second respondent in
Exts.P3 and P4, it is better that the issues are decided in
the first instance by the said authority.
3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit
challenging the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge
the decision of the Board of Directors to which he was also
a party. It is pointed out that in spite of the dissent of the
petitioner, the decision being a collective decision of the
Board, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the same.
In other words, he is only trying to enforce the decision of
the minority that he represents. The counter affidavit also
justifies the need for making the appointments. However,
since the second respondent is in seisin of the matter, I do
not propose to consider the sustainability of the rival
contentions in this writ petition.
4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is
disposed of directing the second respondent to consider
the complaints of the petitioner contained in Exts.P3 and
P4 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders
wpc No.13546/2010 3
thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity to
both the petitioner as well as the first respondent of being
heard in the matter. The interim order in this case shall
continue until final orders are passed on Exts.P3 and P4
by the second respondent.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE
css/
wpc No.13546/2010 4
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
——————————————-
W.P.(C) No.13546 of 2010
——————————————-
Dated this the 21st of June, 2010
ORDER
The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit
questioning the locus standi of the petitioner who is a
Director of the Society to maintain the writ petition. At
any rate, it is pointed out that there are no grounds for
stay of the selection process which has already
progressed. It is also pointed out that the stay can be
confined to appointments alone and that the matter could
be heard on an early date. Accordingly, the order of stay
granted on 23.4.2010 is modified. The selection process
may go on. Appointments pursuant to the selection alone
shall remain stayed. The petitioner seeks time to file reply
affidavit. Post after a week.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE
css/
wpc No.13546/2010 5