High Court Kerala High Court

The Joint Registrar Of … vs K.M.Mathew on 23 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
The Joint Registrar Of … vs K.M.Mathew on 23 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 937 of 2009()


1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
                      ...  Petitioner
2. UNIT INSPECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS

                        Vs



1. K.M.MATHEW, KALATHIL HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.HARIDAS, EZHAMPOKKAL, NILAMPEROOR.P.O.

3. JOJO GOERGE, PATTARKALAM, ERA.P.O.,

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :23/05/2009

 O R D E R
      K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
                     ------------------------------
                     W.A.No.937 OF 2009
                    -------------------------------
             Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009

                        J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The respondents in W.P.(C) No.11225/2009, feeling

aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned Single

Judge in that case on 3.4.2009, have filed this writ appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following:

The respondents herein are the managing committee

members of Nilamperoor Service Co-operative Bank. The Joint

Registrar of Co-operative Societies by Ext.P6 order dated

13.1.2009 superseded the managing committee of the Society.

The respondents herein along with others have challenged that

order before the Government by filing Ext.P8 appeal. Pending

appeal, they also sought stay of Ext.P6 order. But, the

Government dismissed the stay application and therefore, the

Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alappuzha, issued

Ext.P12 communication dated 2.4.2009 directing to implement Ext.P6.

W.A.No.937/2009 2

Challenging Ext.P12 and also seeking a direction not to

implement Ext.P6 till the disposal of Ext.P8 appeal, the writ

petition was filed. The learned Single Judge after hearing

both sides passed the impugned interim order granting

interim stay of Exts.P6 and P12 so as to enable the Board of

Directors to continue in office till the disposal of Ext.P8

appeal.

3. The appellants challenged the impugned order on

various grounds. But, we notice that it is only an interim

order, which will remain in force only till the disposal of

Ext.P8 by the Government or the disposal of the writ petition,

whichever is earlier. Normally, an appeal is not maintainable

against an interim order. The exceptional circumstances

under which a writ appeal can be entertained against an

interim order are detailed in the Larger Bench decision of

this Court in K.S.Das v. State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 358].

Going by the principles laid down in the above decision, we

find no ground has been made out to entertain this writ

appeal.

W.A.No.937/2009 3

In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. It

is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the contentions of the parties in the writ petition.

(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ps