IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22080 of 2008(C)
1. K.K.KUNJUMON
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE SECRETARY,
4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
5. THE NAYARAMBALAM SERVICE
For Petitioner :SRI.SABU THOZHUPPADAN
For Respondent :SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :19/09/2008
O R D E R
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
==================================
W.P.(C)No.22080 of 2008
==================================
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a member of the fifth respondent
Co-operative Bank. His complaint is that the fifth
respondent had not appointed any Grievance
Redressal Officer in terms of Ext.P2 Agricultural
Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and that
the loan availed by him has not been considered for
waiver as per the scheme. Having regard to the
issue raised, the learned senior Government
Pleader, then appearing, was requested to obtain
specific instructions in the matter, in so far as
directions are sought against the Government
officials. The fourth respondent Joint Registrar
has placed a counter affidavit on record
categorically stating that the said respondent had
issued directions on 9-7-2008 to the fifth
respondent to appoint Grievance Redressal Officer
WPC22080/08
-:2:-
in the bank in accordance to the circular direction
of the NABARD and a copy of the NABARD circular was
also forwarded to the fifth respondent. It is also
further stated in the counter affidavit that the
Board of Directors of the fifth respondent had
approved the list of 205 members for debt waiver
and 29 members for debt relief scheme as per
decision dated 4-7-2008 and that on that day, the
Board had also resolved to forward all the types of
complaints to the Board of Directors for redressal.
It is further stated that on 8-7-2008 the
petitioner submitted Ext.P4 petition before the
fourth respondent to appoint a Grievance Redressal
Officer and it was promptly attended to by issuing
the direction dated 9-7-2008 referred to above. It
is further stated by the fourth respondent that the
Board of Directors of the fifth respondent
considered the complaint of the petitioner and 67
others on 24-7-2008 and did not allow the claim of
the petitioner to include his loan in full waiver
WPC22080/08
-:3:-
scheme. There is no reply affidavit or any other
material contradicting the stand taken by the fifth
respondent. I do not find any ground to issue any
direction, as sought for, by the petitioner.
In the result, this writ petition fails. It is
accordingly dismissed.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
sl.