Disposed

The Board of Directorate of Chenkal v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

Kerala HC8 Feb 2008WP(C)/4513/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Requesting discretion not to stay proceedings or interdict them despite specific reasons requirement. Ordered authorities to consider petitioner objections, with enforcement stayed for two months if adversely affecting petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction for authorities to consider petitioner objections; enforcement of adverse decision stayed for two months if applicable to petitioner.

The Board of Directorate of Chenkal Vs the Joint… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 4513 of 2008(K)

PETITIONER:

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CHENKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1258, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶10

M.R. SIMON,

¶11

PRESIDENT, THE CHENKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1258.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

¶15

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.ANU SIVARAM

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶18

ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶19

FOLLOWING:

¶20

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶21

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2008

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader quite in extenso regarding the various grounds on which the impugned notice had been issued, I deem it appropriate not to express anything on merits. However, it is necessary that the statutory authority dealing with the objection to the show cause notice states specific reasons on each of the grounds on which any order would be passed, either against or in favour of the petitioners. The nature of the objections that the petitioners have indicated in the writ petition apparently show that the defence of the petitioners cannot be wholly brushed aside while passing the final orders. Though the petitioners plead that the ultimate intention of the impugned proceedings is only to find out some way to supersede the committee and that the complaint has been filed by a person who had also given complaint to the police, in which case investigation is going on, I am not inclined to stay the

¶24

W.P.(C).No.4513/2008-K

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

proceedings or to issue such directions as would interdict the impugned proceedings.

¶27

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the objections of the petitioners shall be taken into consideration and decision taken in the light of what is stated above. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is further directed that if the decision following the show cause notice adversely affects the petitioner that shall not be enforced for a period of two months.

¶28

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge

¶29

The Board of Directorate of Chenkal v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Board of Directorate of Chenkal v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M.Joshi Vs State of Kerala

V.a.Hamsa Vs Joint Registrar,Co-Operative Socities

T.S. Pushpavally Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies(Gnrl)

M.J.Thomas Vs Secretary,Corporation of Cochin

P.D.Stephen Vs State of Kerala

M.Chandrasekharan Vs State of Kerala