The Primary Co-Operative … vs M.K.Somanathan Nair on 6 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 433 of 2008(U)


1. THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M.K.SOMANATHAN NAIR, RETIRED SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :06/11/2009

 O R D E R
           THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                  -------------------------------------------
                        R.P.No.433 OF 2008
                  IN W.P(C).No.14456 OF 2006
                  -------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009


                               O R D E R

1.This matter is deferred for want of steps to issue notice. Yet

the writ petitioner, first respondent in this review petition,

appears. Learned Government Pleader appears for the

second respondent.

2.The writ petitioner was a servant of the review petitioner, a co-

operative bank. The Joint Registrar issued Ext.P3 directions.

The writ petition was filed by the retired employee seeking a

direction to comply with Ext.P3. All that has been done as per

the judgment sought to be reviewed is to direct that if

necessary steps are not taken by the bank following Ext.P3,

the Joint Registrar will consider whether action is required

against the third respondent and its committee for failure to

act on the directions issued by the Joint Registrar.

RP.433/08

2

3.The fundamental plea projected in this review petition is that

the writ petitioner’s remedy was to go for arbitration under

Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and

not to seek remedy through the Joint Registrar. The fact of the

matter remains that the Joint Registrar’s order has become

final. That order could have been challenged by the bank if it

were aggrieved on grounds of jurisdiction etc. But a collateral

attack to that order, when it is sought to be enforced, cannot

normally be countenanced in a statutory hierarchy. All that

the bank has to do is to reconcile the amounts which are due

to the petitioner in terms of the order of the Joint Registrar

and do the needful. The direction to consider taking action,

as is contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed, would

become operational only if the Joint Registrar is satisfied that

there is willful disobedience or willful neglect to comply with

the command of that officer. Once amounts are fixed and

action taken, if there are any further disputes, they have to be

resolved in accordance with law. I, therefore, do not find any

error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment

RP.433/08

3

warranting review. With the aforesaid clarification, this

review petition is closed.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.12/11.