Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Maggie Varghese vs Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies on 10 June, 2014

Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT:

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

       WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

                             WP(C).No. 40963 of 2016 (U)
                                 ----------------------------


PETITIONER(S):
-------------

                MAGGIE VARGHESE, AGED 61 YEARS,
                W/O.LATE VINOO GEORGE IPE,
                ARACKAL, PARK LANE, KOTTAYAM-686 001


                BY ADVS.SRI.JAMES KURIAN
                        SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

          1.    REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
                STATUE NR. PRESS CLUB,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 685 001

          2.    JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES,
                COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 002

          3.    KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT
                BANK LTD., P.B.NO. 198,
                KOTTAYAM- 686 001
                REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

          4.    THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE
                AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., P.B.NO. 198,
                KOTTAYAM- 686 001
                REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

          5.    KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
                KOTTAYAM- 686 001


                BY SRI.V.G.ARUN
                BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ
                BY SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
                BY SRI.S.RANJIT (KOTTAYAM), SC, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY

                THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
                21-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
                FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 40963 of 2016 (U)
----------------------------


                                           APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:


EXT.P1:              TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DATED 10.06.2014

EXT.P2:              TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF
                     RS.5000/- DATED 21.07.1994

EXT.P3:              THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE OLD BUILDING CONSISTING OF TWO
                     ROOMS WHEREIN THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND WAS CARRIED ON
                     HIS BUSINESS

EXT.P4:              TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14.02.1997 EVIDENCING
                     PAYMENT OF RS.25000/-

EXT.P5:              THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF ROW
                     BUILDING BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK

EXT.P6:              TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.12.2016 SUBMITTED
                     BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.


RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:                    NIL


                                                          //TRUE COPY//


                                                          P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk



                  P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

       --------------------------------------------------

                W.P.(C) No.40963 of 2016

       --------------------------------------------------

       Dated this the 21st day of December, 2016


                         JUDGMENT

The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when this matter was taken up for admission, is for a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation within a time frame. Ext.P6 is a representation preferred by the petitioner pertaining her right to occupy a room in the building constructed by the third respondent Bank.

2. The learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the third respondent at the time of admission contended that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter raised in Ext.P6 representation.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the third respondent as also the W.P.(C) No.40963 of 2016 -2- learned Government Pleader.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation with notice to the petitioner as also the third respondent Bank, within three weeks from today. While complying with the said direction, the Joint Registrar shall necessarily deal with the contention raised by the third respondent Bank as to the jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar to deal with matters of this nature. Needless to say that until a final decision is taken, the room referred to in Ext.P6 shall not be given to anybody.

Sd/-

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE bpr