IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1361 of 2009()
1. R.SIVAKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.SASIKUMAR, RESIDING AT PRASANTH,
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
4. KANJIRAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :02/07/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------
W.A. No.1361 OF 2009
---------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is a member of the 4th respondent Society.
The said Society moved the Joint Registrar for relaxing the
prescribed qualifications for appointing the 1st respondent/writ
petitioner as the Secretary of the 4th respondent Society. That
application was disposed of by the Joint Registrar stating that
the 1st respondent can move for exemption, after he completes
five years service in the feeder category. The respondent
appealed and the Government by Ext.P4 order allowed the
exemption prayed for by him, but, further added that the said
order will take effect only from the date of that order.
Challenging that order, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4 in
the Writ Petition, the 1st respondent approached this Court. The
learned Single Judge ordered that the exemption granted by the
Government will take effect from the date of resolution taken by
the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent Society , that is,
from 10.5.2003.
W.A.No.1361/2009 2
2. The appellant, who is a member of the Society,
challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge stating that
he is affected by that decision. It is not shown, how a member of
the Society is affected by the decision of the learned Single
Judge. Having regard to the nature of the decision involved, we
feel that the appellant has no locus standi to interfere with the
said matter. As far as the subject matter of Ext.P4 is concerned,
the appellant is a meddlesome interloper. So, we feel that the
alleged grievance of a solitary member of the Society granting
retrospectivity to Ext.P4 should not be examined by this Court.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ps