Mohanan Achari C vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3497 Ker

WP(C).No.12845 OF 2020(E)

                                  1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

    MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

                      WP(C).No.12845 OF 2020(E)


PETITIONER/S:

                MOHANAN ACHARI C
                AGED 58 YEARS
                S/O.CHELLAPPAN ACHARI, (DRIVER, KSRTC, MAVELIKKARA
                DEPOT, RETIRED ON 28.02.2018), RESIDING AT THAYYIL
                THEKKATHIL VEEDU, PUNNAMOODU, MAVELIKKARA P.O.,
                ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 101.

                BY ADV. SHRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
                BAHVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 023.

      2         FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
                KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
                BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 023.

      3         ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
                KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
                MAVELIKKARA DEPOT, MAVELIKAKRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
                PIN-690 101.

      4         KERALA STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
                LTD NO.T.133,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, S.S.KOVIL ROAD,
                THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

                R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
                R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.12845 OF 2020(E)

                               2




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of February 2021

The orders dated 15.1.2018 and 19.3.2020, Exts.P4 and

P7, whereby the amounts alleged to have been paid in excess

to the petitioner is being recovered by the Kerala State Road

Transport Workers Co-operative Society. According to the

petitioner, he had taken a loan from the Society and had

remitted the entire amount through recovery from the salary

and also by direct remittance in the Society. But the Society

did not, within the time prescribed under Section 7, properly

accounted it and therefore there was a dispute with regard to

payment of interest thereon. Rule 52 (7) of the Kerala Co-

operative Societies Rules, 1969 clearly provides 'any amount

realised by a society from a member by deduction shall be

given credit by the society to the account of such member with

effect from the date on which the amount was deducted by the

employer or the officer. On the appropriation of the amount in

the account of the society, the particulars of credit for the

amount realised shall forthwith be furnished to the member by WP(C).No.12845 OF 2020(E)

the society. '

2. The petitioner had no such huge liability towards the

society and ready to pay the amount to the 4 th respondent, but

the 4th respondent has no authority to recover the whole

amount due from the petitioner.

3. I am afraid the aforementioned argument would not

be permissible to be agitated by this Court in view of

provisions of Section 69 (1) ((h) of the Kerala Co-operative

Societies Act, the same reads thus.

"Section 69 Disputes to be decided by Co-operative

Arbitration Court and Registrar

(1) Not withstanding anything contained in any law for the

time being in force, if a dispute arises

******

(h) between the society and creditor of the soceity; such

dispute shall be referred to the Co-operatie Arbitration

Court constituted under Section 70A, in the case of non-

monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of

monetary disputes and the Arbitration Court, or the

Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute

and no other court or other authority shall have

jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in

respect of such dispute."

WP(C).No.12845 OF 2020(E)

4. Thus, remedy available to the petitioner is to

approach the Registrar, for settlement through arbitration.

Therefore, I do not find any justification warranting

interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India regarding the disputed fact and veracity and

authenticity of Exts.P4 and P7. The writ petition is accordingly

dismissed.

                                                      Sd/

                                                  AMIT RAWAL

Jm/                                                  JUDGE
 WP(C).No.12845 OF 2020(E)




                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE PENSION

PAYMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.08.2018 IN WPC NO.27927 OF 2018.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY DETAILS DATED 08.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.53992/17-18 DATED 15.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CASE REPORTED AS 2001 KHC 812.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.