IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17191 of 2010(Y)
1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT,
... Respondent
2. V.MOHAMMED AZEEM, RESIDING AT C.P.HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :03/06/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO.17191 OF 2010
............................................
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6
order of stay granted by the Co-operative Arbitration Court,
Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.85 of 2009 in ARC 109 of 2009. The case
has been filed by the second respondent, who was suspended from
service on 13.7.2007, alleging illegal sanction of 18 mortgage loans
aggregating a total amount of Rs.1,22,50,000/-. Ext.P1 memo of
charges was issued and after due enquiry, Ext.P2 report was received
finding that the second respondent was guilty of the charges. The
enquiry report was accepted and Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued
to the second respondent directing him to show cause why he should
not be removed from service. Without submitting any explanation to
Ext.P4, it is alleged that the second respondent filed ARC No.109 of
2009 before the first respondent – Arbitration Court. The first
respondent has passed Ext.P6 ordering stay of all further proceedings.
Wpc 17191/2010 2
According to the petitioner, though the petitioner had filed counter
affidavit on 18.9.2009, evidenced herein by Ext.P7 and had moved for
vacating the interim order, no orders have been passed thereon, till
date. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ
petition challenging the interim order.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that under Section 69(h), the
proceedings before the first respondent are not maintainable, the proper
remedy of the petitioner being to file an appeal.
3. Since the petitioner has already sought for vacating the order
of stay, it is not necessary to consider the issue in these proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Suffice it to direct the first
respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in the matter
expeditiously.
4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
directing the first respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner
contained in Ext.P7, to the continuance of the arbitration proceedings
as well as the interim order of stay, and to pass appropriate orders on
I.A.85 of 2009, after hearing all interested persons in accordance with
Wpc 17191/2010 3
law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk