REGI PAILY Vs. OONNUKAL SERVICE CO OPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the member of the first respondent, Co-operative bank. The area of the first respondent as well as that of the second respondent had been fixed at the time of granting permission to function within the respective areas. However, the writ petitioner apprehends that the third respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, on the application of the second respondent, is intending to give permission to the second respondent, to open a new branch within that area, which would overlap the area of functioning of the first respondent. Ext.P3 representation had already been given to the third respondent and the same is pending.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned senior Government Pleader for the third respondent.

(3.) Considering the facts on record as well as the provisions contained in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, I direct the third respondent to hear respondents 1 and 2 as well as the writ petitioner and dispose of Ext.P3 representation, as per the law.