IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WA NO. 552 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 12848/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DECENT JUNCTION SERVICE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.Q.133
DECENT JUNCTION P.O., KOLLAM-691577, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT.
2 DECENT JUNCTION SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. Q.133
DECENT JUNCTION.P.O, KOLLAM-691577, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT.
BY ADVS.
SARANGADHARAN P.
N.S.SHAMILA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)
CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691013.
2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES(GENERAL)
CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691013.
3 THE INQUIRY OFFICER/UNIT INSPECTOR, VADAKKEVILA
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES(GENERAL), CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691013.
ADV JUSTIN JACOB SR GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 552 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran,J.
The appellants impugn the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2022, whereby, the enquiry being proceeded against them under the provisions of Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act has been permitted to be continued, provided the time frame specified in Ext.P3 is extended.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, as is evident from Annexure B, the Joint Registrar of the Co- operative Societies, Kollam, has extended the time frame retrospectively from 06.04.2022 and that this is in error.
3. Even if we are to find any force in the afore submissions, it is evident that its merit cannot be assessed in this writ appeal. It is certainly upto the appellants to challenge WA NO. 552 OF 2022 3 Annexure B appropriately, particularly since, through impugned order, the learned Judge has only permitted the continuation of enquiry subject to the time frame being extended statutorily.
4. To paraphrase, if the appellants have a case that the extension granted through Annexure B is erroneous or incompetent, then it is for them to challenge it appositely, either in the pending writ petition or through a fresh proceedings.
5. This is also because, even at the time when the impugned order was issued, Annexure B had been brought into force by the Joint Registrar.
6. At this time, the learned counsel for the appellants intervened to say that the impugned order is also bad for the reason that it partakes the characteristics of a final judgment. We do not propose to speak on this at WA NO. 552 OF 2022 4 all because all which has been done by the learned Judge is to allow the enquiry to continue as per law, provided the time frame has been extended. Since Annexure B order had been, admittedly, issued by the Joint Registrar even at the time when the impugned order was issued, we do not deem it necessary to answer this question in this appeal and leave it to be pursued by the appellants before the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, this writ appeal is closed with the afore observations and clarifications.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE SAS WA NO. 552 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF W.A.No.552 of 2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE OF THE APPELLANTS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19-4-2022 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP 854/2016 DATED ANNEXURE B 18-4-2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT