Disposed

Urukunnu Service Co-Op. Bank LTD.NO.Q190 v. the Registrar of Co-Op.Societies & Ors.

Kerala HC15 Nov 2016WP(C)/21271/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging an order directing a cooperative bank to stop functioning a branch. The Court held that while prior permission was required after the expiry of the initial period, the objection regarding operational area overlap was invalid. The petitioner was directed to seek formal permission for legalization of the branch.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to file a formal application to the Joint Registrar for permission to legalize the branch functioning with effect from 26.07.2011 within three weeks.

Urukunnu Service Co-Op. Bank LTD.NO.Q190 Vs the… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/24TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 21271 of 2011 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

URUKUNNU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.Q-190, PATHANAPURAM, IDAMON, URUKUNNU.P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT(M.DANIEL, S/O.MATHAI, THEKKETHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, URUKUNNU.P.O, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM)

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SMT.V.AJITHA SMT.K.RAJANI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVES OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), KOLLAM-691001.

¶12

3. URUKUNNU RURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.Q 1468, URUKUNNU.P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-691329.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.S.SHYJAN PRASANTH R3 BY ADVS.SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 21271 of 2011 (H)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT. P1	: TRUE COPY NO.C.P.(3) NO.1.	OF THE 54052/0	PROCEEDINGS BEARING 6 DATED 18.12.2006 OF RESPONDENT
EXT. P2	: TRUE COPY NO.CRP.589 NO.2.	OF THE 4/06/K.	PROCEEDINGS BEARING DIS DATED 19.1.07 OF RESPONDENT
EXT. P3	: TRUE COPY	OF THE	RESOLUTION DATED 8.7.2011.
EXT. P4	: TRUE COPY SECRETARY	OF THE OF THE	NOTICE DATED 18.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE BANK.
EXT. P5	: TRUE COPY SECRETARY	OF THE OF THE	NOTICE DATED 26.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE BANK.
EXT. P6	: TRUE COPY KERALA KAU	OF THE MUDI DA	NEWS ITEM DATED 27.7.2011 REPORTED IN ILY.
EXT. P6A	: TRUE COPY DESABHIMAN	OF THE I DAILY	NEWS ITEM DATED 27.7.2011 REPORTED IN .
EXT. P6B	: TRUE COPY JANAYUGAM	OF THE DAILY.	NEWS ITEM DATED 27.7.2011 REPORTED IN
EXT. P7	: TRUE COPY 2.8.2011)	OF THE ISSUED	ORDER DATED 27.7.2011 (SERVED ON BY RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

¶21

mbr/

¶22

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 21271 of 2011

¶24

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2016

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

1.This writ petition is filed by a cooperative bank, challenging Ext.P7 order of the 2^nd respondent dated 27.07.2011, directing the petitioner to stop functioning of morning and evening branch of the bank at Urukunnu Junction.

¶27

2.The petitioner was given permission to start a branch at Urukunnu vide Ext.P1; and on the basis of Ext.P1, the 2^nd respondent passed Ext.P2 order dated 19.01.2007, permitting the petitioner to open the morning and evening counter at Urukunnu Junction on condition that such a branch shall be started with the existing strength within a period of six months. However, the petitioner opened the branch only on 26.07.2011 and the petitioner did not obtain further permission from the 2^nd respondent after the expiry of the period, for which permission is granted. As per Ext.P7, the 2^nd respondent directed the petitioner to stop functioning of the branch at Urukunnu

¶28

..2..

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 21271 of 2011

¶30

Junction on two grounds; firstly, it was opened after six months and secondly, the operation of the branch would come within the operational area of the 3^rd respondent society.

¶31

3.Insofar as the first ground is concerned, certainly, the petitioner had not obtained a further permission after expiry of the original period. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner ought to have obtained permission from the 2^nd respondent. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, it is to be noted that the 3^rd respondent society is in operation in the area from 29.04.2006 onwards. Therefore, the fact that the 3^rd respondent is in operation in the area, cannot be a reason for objection as the 3^rd respondent was functioning in the area even at the time of granting permission as per Ext.P2. 4.In the light of the fact that there are no other grounds to object to the operation of the branch at Urukunnu other than that the petitioner has not obtained prior permission from the 2^nd respondent after the original period expired, this Court is of the view that the operation of the branch at

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 21271 of 2011

¶33

..3..

¶34

Urukunnu can be legalized by passing appropriate orders by the 2^nd respondent.

¶35

5.Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, as follows;

¶36

The petitioner shall file a formal application before the 2^nd respondent to grant permission with effect from 26.07.2011 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

In the event of the petitioner filing such an application, the 2^nd respondent shall legalize the functioning of the branch of the petitioner at Urukunnu by passing appropriate orders, within a period of two months thereafter.

¶38

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶39

bka/-

Urukunnu Service Co-Op. Bank LTD.NO.Q190 v. the Registrar of Co-Op.Societies & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urukunnu Service Co-Op. Bank LTD.NO.Q190 v. the Registrar of Co-Op.Societies & Ors.

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

M/S Great India Estate Private Limited Vs Sreekala

Christina Vs R.Done

Devaki Vs Shynamol, Now Working as the District Collector

J.Vimal Kumar Vs Edava Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.3782

Elikutty Thomas Vs the Registrar

The Managing Director Capex Vs M/S. Saba Trading Pvt. Ltd.