Vellanadu Service Co-Operative ... vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 20039 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 20007 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

            VELLANADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2379,
            AGED 53 YEARS
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE, VELLANAD
            P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 543

            BY ADVS.
            P.N.MOHANAN
            C.P.SABARI



RESPONDENT/S:

    1       THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
            KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541

    2       CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
            ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 542

    3       SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
            ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 542


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI. E.C. BINEESH - GP




     THIS    WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   24.09.2021,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20007 OF 2021



                                    -2-



                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner, which is a Co-operative

Society, has approached this Court seeking a

direction to be issued to the respondents to afford

them adequate and effective protection, so as to

enable them the conduct a written examination on

25.09.2021, at NSS Karayogam Hall, Vellanad and

for the consequent interview.

2. However, Shri.Badusha Sulaiman,

learned counsel, intervened to say that his clients

intents to implead into the array of respondents

in this case because the petitioner is now trying

to conduct the examination in blatant disregard of

the order of the Arbitration Court, namely, Ext.P2.

He submitted that, as is evident therefrom,

appointments have been stayed by that Court; and

consequently, it would be a futile exercise for the

petitioner to conduct examination and interview at WP(C) NO. 20007 OF 2021

this stage. He added that the petitioner,

therefore, should have approached the Arbitration

Court, rather than seeking permission to conduct

the examination and interview, have filed this writ

petition seeking police protection to do so.

3. In reply, Shri.C.P.Sabari, learned

counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as it

limpid from Ext.P2 interim order of the Arbitration

Court, his client has been only directed to make

any appointments but they have not been interdicted

to conduct examination or the interview.

4. I am afraid that I cannot find favour

with the afore submissions of Shri.C.P.Sabari,

because, if all appointments have been stayed by

the Arbitration Court, then I cannot see why the

petitioners should conduct an examination or

interview at this time, that too without obtaining

necessary clarificatory orders from the said Court.

Resultantly, I am of the view that this WP(C) NO. 20007 OF 2021

Court will not be justified in exercising

discretion in favour of the petitioner and to grant

any relief to them as has been sought for in this

writ petition.

This writ petition is consequently

dismissed.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE STK WP(C) NO. 20007 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20007/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF HTE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN KERALA KOUMUDI DATED 11.03.2020.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 24.12.2019 IN I.A. NO. 119/2019 ARC 8214 OF THE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2020 IN W.P.C NO. 4503/2020

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17.09.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17.09.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.