Dismissing this review petition, the Court rejected the argument that the writ petition was flawed due to improper party array. The Court held that the Managing Committee was properly arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
RP NO. 830 OF 2022
(REVIEW PETITION FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2022 IN
WP(C) 18350/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
BY ADV P.N.MOHANAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3, 4 AND 5:
1 ROOPESH K., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.BHARATHAN, KALLALATHIL HOUSE, P.O.CHALAD, KANNUR-670 014.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO.830/2022 in WP(C)NO.18350/2022
-2-
ORDER
This petition, seeking review of the
judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.18350/2022, has been filed by the petitioners raising an ingenuous argument that the challenge against the impugned orders in the writ petition which had been obtained by the writ petitioner without its President and Managing Committee on the party array was improper; and therefore, that this Court could not have issued the said
judgment.
when he argued the writ petition, he made no
such assertion; and there was not even a contention regarding non-impleadment of
necessary parties.
RP NO.830/2022 in WP(C)NO.18350/2022
favour with the argument of Sri.P.N.Mohanan, the
fact remains that the Managing Committee was arrayed as the second respondent in the writ petition and validity of the orders impugned
therein was considered without any objection as afore being raised.
allegation that the conclusions of this Court - as reflected in the judgment sought to be reviewed - are in any manner, in error, the invocation of this Court's jurisdiction for review can never be permitted.
In the afore circumstances, this Review Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
akv
RP NO.830/2022 in WP(C)NO.18350/2022
-4-
APPENDIX OF RP 830/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2015 IN STC 1132/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KANNUR. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 13 (2) DATED 26.12.2021 OF THE GENERAL BODY.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
1 Pallikkunnunnu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
2 The Committee of Pallikkunnunnu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
1 Roopesh K.
2 The Joint Registrar (General), Co-Operative Societies, Kannur
3 The Registrar of Co Operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram
4 State of Kerala
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
