The President vs The President
2021 Latest Caselaw 3229 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

                                   &

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

      FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942

                        WA.No.1779 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20197/2020(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS.5 & 6:

      1      THE PRESIDENT,
             MAVELIKKARA TALUK CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 707,
             MAVELIKKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 101.

      2      MAVELIKKARA TALUK CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 707,
             MAVELIKKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690101,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
             SRI.P.S.GIREESH
             SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 4:

      1      CHANDRIKA JANARDHANA KURUP,
             AGED 72 YEARS,
             W/O JANARDHANA KURUP,
             PAMPUTHARA HOUSE, OLAKETTIAMBALAM P.O.,
             MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 510.

      2      STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
             DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
             GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      3      THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      4      THE JOINT REGISTRAR,
             OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR
             OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
             TECHI ANGALAMMAN COMPLEX,
 Writ Appeal No. 1779 of 2020

                               2

             OPP.ST.ANTONYS SCHOOL, THIRUVAMBADY,
             ALAPPUZHA-688 002.

      5      THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
             OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
             OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
             MAVELIKKARA-690101.

             R1 BY ADV.GISA SUSAN THOMAS

             R2-5 BY ADV. K.R. DEEPA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Writ Appeal No. 1779 of 2020

                                      3



                                 JUDGMENT

Ravikumar, J.

This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated

02-11-2020 in W.P.(C) No. 20197/2020. The appellants were

respondent Nos. 5 and 6 therein. The 1 st respondent herein, the writ

petitioner, filed the writ petition mainly seeking issuance of a writ of

mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to disburse the amount

covered by Exhibit P1, as the cumulative deposit had already

matured. As per Ext.P1, the 1st respondent is entitled to the matured

amount with interest on expiry of one year. It is the non disbursal

of the said amount, despite its maturity, that constrained the 1 st

respondent to file this writ petition.

2. The 1st respondent is a septuagenarian and taking note of

the indisputable facts pertaining to the deposit effected by her, the

learned Single Judge held that it is not a fit case where the 1 st

respondent should be driven to approach the forum under Section 69

of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Consequently, the writ

petition was disposed of with directions to the 5 th and 6th

respondents to disburse the amount, in terms of Ext. P1, to the writ Writ Appeal No. 1779 of 2020

petitioner/the 1st respondent herein, with interest as assured, within a

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the

judgment. It is feeling aggrieved by the same that respondent Nos.

5 and 6 therein preferred this appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the

learned counsel appearing for the party respondent.

4. In the appeal, it is contended that the learned Single

Judge ought to have found that the issues involved constituted a

dispute visualised under Section 69(2)(d) of the K.C.S.Act, and

therefore, owing to the necessity for a detailed enquiry with respect

to the factual as well as legal aspects should have declined to

exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Further-more, the learned counsel for the appellants relied

on the decisions of this Court in Meenachil Rubber Marketing

and Processing Co-operative Society Ltd and another v.

Choondachery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd and another

(2018 (2) KHC 180 (DB) and Managing Director, Kerala State

Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation v. Kallumala

Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd and others (2018 (2) KHC

187 (DB), and contended that in view of the law laid down therein, Writ Appeal No. 1779 of 2020

the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ

petition.

5. When this matter was taken up for consideration, the

learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner

made available the original of the deposit certificate issued by the

1st appellant, the true copy of which was produced in the writ

petition as Ext.P1. It would reveal that the 1 st respondent has

deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and it was repayable on

08-11-2017. The maturity value was also specifically mentioned in

the said deposit receipt. In the said circumstances, we are at a loss

to understand what exactly is the point of dispute.

6. As noticed earlier, the learned senior counsel appearing

for the appellants contended that the writ petition ought not to have

been entertained in the light of the decision in Meenachil case

(supra) and Kallumala case (supra). However, the fact is that,

Meenachil case (supra) and Kallumala case (supra) were rendered

without reference to an earlier Division Bench decision, in

W.A.No.1597/2009 dated 23-07-2009 that arise from the judgment

in W.P.(C) No.5333/2009, in which one of us [C.T. Ravikumar (J)]

was a party, rendered with reference to a decision of the Hon'ble Writ Appeal No. 1779 of 2020

Apex Court. Relying on the said decision the identical issue

involved in this case was considered by a Division Bench, in which

one of us [C.T. Ravikumar (J)] was a party, in the decision in

Gandhigram Agro Based Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. v.

Marangatupilly Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others in

(2019 (3) KHC 60. With respect to the amount deposited; the date

of maturity and the amount payable on maturity was specifically

endorsed in the deposit certificate issued by the Bank. There is no

dispute in view of Ext.P1. In fact, there is no challenge or dispute

regarding the factum of deposit effected by the 1 st respondent under

Ext.P1. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner is still in possession

of the original of the deposit certificate. Provisions under the

Banking Regulation Act applicable to Co-operative societies and

various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court were referred to/relied

on there. It was also held that in the absence of any dispute calling

for adjudication, a party cannot be relegated to avail the remedy

under Section 69 of the K.C.S. Act, in a matter of this nature. The

liability of the appellants to repay the amount to the petitioner

cannot be disputed in the absence of dispute regarding Ext.P1 and

endorsements therein. In fact, as is evident from the deposit Writ Appeal No. 1779 of 2020

certificate, the maturity amount ought to have been repaid on or

after 08-11-2017. Anyway, at this instant of time, the appellants

cannot raise any contention for the purpose of withholding the

amount any further, which was deposited by the 1 st respondent. The

amount payable, as ordered by the learned Single Judge, covered by

Ext.P1, shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today.

Subject to the above, the appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE

Sd/-

                                                 K.HARIPAL
                                                   JUDGE
SSK/29/01                //TRUE COPY//               P.A. TO JUDGE