Disposed

The Calicut City Service Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Dec 2018WP(C)/27784/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a declaration and writ of certiorari to quash an order rejecting a cash credit enhancement request, while also praying for mandamus to sanction the enhancement. The court noted the second petitioner lacked locus standi and, in view of a pending fresh request, directed the respondent to consider and decide it appropriately within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed by directing respondent to consider petitioner's request and pass appropriate orders within two months with notice and hearing.

The Calicut City Service Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs State of… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 27784 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 THE CALICUT CITY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD LTD.NO. D.2777, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT,REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER

¶8

2 CANCER AND ALLIED AILMENTS RESEARCH FOUNDATION(CARE FOUNDATION) REG.NO.S.273/2011, CHOOLOOR, POOLAKODE, VELLALASSERY POST, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SRI.O.A.ANJU SMT.P.S.BHAGYA SURABHI SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO- OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT 695001 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶11

BY SRI. BIMAL K.NATH, SR.GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No. 27784 of 2018

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The 1^st petitioner is a Society registered under

¶17

the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies

¶18

Act, 1969 and the rules made thereunder. The 2^nd petitioner is a charitable Society registered under

¶19

the Societies Registration Act, XXI of 1860 with the main objective to establish a cancer hospital at Choolur. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that the request made by the 1^st petitioner in Ext.P5 is highly legal and one which should be granted and that the reasons given out in Ext.P6 in highly illegal and without any basis or legal footing hence liable to be set aside. The petitioners have also sought for a writ

¶20

of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 and a writ of

¶21

mandamus commanding the respondent to sanction the enhancement of cash credit sought for in Ext.P5 forthwith.

¶22

On 16.08.2018, when this writ petition came

¶23

WP(C).No. 27784 of 2018

¶24

¶25

up for admission, this Court admitted the matter of

¶26

file. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for the respondent. The respondent was directed to file counter affidavit.

¶27

On 11.12.2018, when this writ petition came

¶28

up for consideration, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2018 seeking an order to accept Exts.P7 and P8 as additional documents and I.A.No.2 of 2018 seeking an order directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 request dated 17.10.2018. This Court allowed I.A.No.1 of 2018; and I.A.No.2 of 2018 was adjourned so as to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions.

¶29

petitioners and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶30

respondent, whereby the request made by the 1^st

¶31

petitioner in Ext.P5 stands rejected on account of

¶32

some technical reasons. The 2^nd petitioner has

¶33

WP(C).No. 27784 of 2018

¶34

¶35

absolutely no locus standi to challenge Ext.P6

¶36

order or to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶37

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in conformity with the requirements, the 1^st petitioner has already made Ext.P8 request, based on Ext.P7 resolution of the Managing Committee on 01.10.2018. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this writ petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 request made by the 1^st petitioner.

¶38

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that if Ext.P8 is pending consideration, the respondent shall consider the same and pass

¶39

appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the 1^st petitioner and after affording it opportunity of being heard to it.

¶40

WP(C).No. 27784 of 2018

¶41

¶42

Having considered the submissions made by the

¶43

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 request made by the 1^st petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the 1^st petitioner and after affording it an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶44

interfered with Ext.P6 order of the respondent dated 31.07.2018 and it is for the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8

¶45

request, strictly in accordance with law.

¶46

ANIL K.NARENDRAN,JUDGE

¶47

AV/20/12

¶48

WP(C).No. 27784 of 2018

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.P. (1)12285/11 DATED 30.04.2011. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O. (P)NO.153/2015/CO-OP DATED 21.11.2015. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O. (P)NO.81/2016/CO-OP DATED 30.07.2016. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 10.07.2017 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 16.08.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.474/2018/COOP DATED 31.07.2018 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.IV DATED 1-10-2018 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 17-10-2018.

The Calicut City Service Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Calicut City Service Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

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

Sulthan Bathery Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Perumbavoor Hotels and Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Hafiz Mohammed Shuhaib Vs the Special Sale Officer/Arbitrator

Shihabudeen P.K. Vs the Secretary

Safeer P.A Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

K.S. Nazar Vs the Muvattupuzha Primary Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural