High Court Kerala High Court

T.D.Raju vs The Ayarkunnam Service … on 8 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
T.D.Raju vs The Ayarkunnam Service … on 8 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15655 of 2009(B)


1. T.D.RAJU, AGED 52,S/O.DAMODHARAN
                      ...  Petitioner
2. KUSUMAM, RAJU, AGED 48, W/O.RAJU
3. ALEYAMMA ABRAHAM, AGED 58, W/O.ABRAHAM
4. SKARIAH MATHEW, AGED 60,S/O.MATHEW
5. THANKAPPANACHARY, AGED 60,
6. V.P.SOMASEKHARAPILLAI,
7. PARAMESWARANPILLAI LATE
8. SASIDHARANPILLAI
9. ANILKUMAR, AGED 44
10. VINODKUMAR, AGED 40,S/O.PAVITHRAN,
11. N.GOPINATHAN, AGED 68, S/O.NARAYAN
12. K.A.MATHEW, AGED 52
13. ALICE MATHEW, AGED 48, W/O.MATHEW

                        Vs



1. THE AYARKUNNAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.K.MOHANAN

3. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK

4. JOINT REGISTRAR (AUDIT) CO-OPERATIVE

5. THE REGIONAL OFFICER

6. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

7. UNION OF INDIA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :08/06/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 15655 OF 2009 (B)
                =====================

             Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

The grievance of the writ petitioners is that though they

have applied for the benefit of Ext.P1, the Agricultural Debt

Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, respondents 1 and 2 have

not so far taken a decision on the said application. It is stated

that urging this complaint, they have also moved the 2nd

respondent by filing Ext.P10 and that even on Ext.P10, there has

not been any response. It is in these circumstances, the writ

petition has been filed.

2. Taking into account the above, I feel at this stage, the

grievance of the petitioners can be redressed, if a decision on

Ext.P10 is taken by the 2nd respondent.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd

respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10. This shall be

done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of

production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this

writ petition.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp