Dismissed

The Calicut City Service Co. Operative Bank Ltd. No. D.2777 v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Nov 2020WP(C)/17792/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging an audit report entry without examining merits. The Court directed the Secretary, Department of Cooperation (1st respondent) to take a decision on the petitioner's request regarding the treatment of Rs.50 crores cash credit advance in the audit report within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on the audit reserve matter and communicate the decision within 4 weeks.

The Calicut City Service Co. Operative Bank Ltd. No… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.17792 OF 2020(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE CALICUT CITY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. D.2777, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI SMT.P.S.BHAGYA SURABHI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014

¶12

3 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT, SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, PUTHIYARA P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 004

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT, SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, PUTHIYARA P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 004.

¶14

5 THE SPECIAL GRADE CONCURRENT AUDITOR, THE CALICUT CITY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.D 2777, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT-673 002

¶15

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SR GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.17792 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The instant writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶21

i. To declare that as per the Audit manual and relevant Circulars issued by the 2nd respondent, the amount of Rs.50 crores advance as Cash Credit to Care Foundation for which sanction is awaited and in respect of which no amounts are overdue are not to be shown as reserve in the audit report by the 5th respondent;

¶22

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the 5th respondent not to show/state the amount of Rs.50 crores advanced as cash credit to Care Foundation as reserve in the audit certificate 2019-2020.

¶23

When this writ petition was taken up for admission, Sri.B.S.Swathi

¶24

Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his limited request is for a direction to the 1st respondent to take up Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision without further delay.

¶25

The learned Government Pleader on instructions pointed out that it is

¶26

for the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent. However, he states that there

¶27

WP(C).No.17792 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

is no impediment in considering the representation now that it is pending before the 1st respondent as stated by the petitioner.

¶30

I have considered the submissions advanced. In view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of without going into the merits of the assertions.

¶31

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take up Exhibit-P3 request made by the petitioner and take appropriate decision with notice to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the assertions made by the petitioner in Exhibit P3 or its sustainability.

¶32

To enable the 1st respondent to expedite the proceedings, the petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the authority.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

sru

¶37

WP(C).No.17792 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C.P.(1) 12285/11 DATED 30.4.2011. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 8 DATED 29.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. CCSCB/GEN/10/2020 DATED 20.1.2020.

¶42

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

P.A TO JUDGE

The Calicut City Service Co. Operative Bank Ltd. No. D.2777 v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Calicut City Service Co. Operative Bank Ltd. No. D.2777 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

Sunil C.K. Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Santhakumari.B Vs State of Kerala

Palliveettil Abdu Rahiman Vs District Collector

Balakrishna Pillai. P Vs Mathra Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 314

Dinil Dinesh Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur

Cherukunnu Petroleum (I.O.C. Dealer) Vs the State Police Chief