Raveendran.V.G vs G.Sreenivasan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12806 Ker

                        C.T.RAVIKUMAR &
                         N.NAGARESH, JJ.
             ---------------------------------------------
                          I.A.No.1 of 2019
                                   in
               Unnumbered Writ Appeal of 2019
                     (Filing No.34465/2019)
             ----------------------------------------------
                        Dated 9th June, 2021

                               ORDER

Ravikumar, J.

The above numbered Interlocutory Application is filed by

third parties to W.P.(C) No. 10418 of 2019 seeking leave to file appeal

against the judgment passed thereon. The said writ petition was filed

by the first respondent in the I.A. who got both Savings Bank Account

and Fixed Deposits with Mavelikkara Taluk Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

No.707, the 6th respondent in the I.A. His case was that the 6 th

respondent Bank is illegally not permitting him to operate the Savings

Bank Account and also refusing to repay the amounts under the Fixed

Deposits though they all have got matured. It was in the said

circumstances that he filed the said writ petition seeking the following

prayers:-

"(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 4th and 5th respondents to comply the direction in Ext.P4 judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in correct perspective.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 5 to pay off the amounts of petitioner in deposit with 5th respondent

Unnumbered Writ Appeal of 2019 (Filing No.34465/2019)

together with interest thereon in terms of Exts.P1, P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) respectively.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 4th and 5th respondents to pay off the amounts of the petitioner in Ext.P6 SB Account without any further delay."

2. The impugned Judgment would reveal that the learned

counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent-Administrator-in-charge of the

6th respondent Bank herein submitted before the learned Single Judge

that as regards the Savings Bank Account is concerned the Bank could

not stand in the way of the petitioner operating it and at the same, with

regard to the Fixed Deposits he got serious objections, particularly

because of an ongoing Crime Branch enquiry to many of these

accounts. In short, his submission, as is evident from the impugned

judgment, was that the first respondent could be permitted to operate

the Savings Bank Account and he would have to invoke the remedy

under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the

Act') for the accounts remaining in the Fixed Deposits. The petitioner,

thereupon sought for a direction to the 6 th respondent Bank to permit

him to operate the Savings Bank Account so as to withdraw the entire

amount therein and further submitted that he would then, pursue with

his remedies to redress the grievance regarding the refusal to pay back

Unnumbered Writ Appeal of 2019 (Filing No.34465/2019)

the amounts under the Fixed Deposits, appropriately before the

competent Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 69 of the Act.

Taking into account the said submissions the learned Single Judge

ordered as follows:-

" In the afore circumstances and since I see that there is no dispute as regard as the Savings Bank Account, I direct the 5 th respondent- Bank to forthwith to allow the petitioner to operate the said Account enabling him to withdraw the entire amount remaining in balance therein, if so required; and I leave the petitioner full liberty to approach the Competent Arbitrator under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act with respect to the Fixed Deposits.

This writ petition is thus ordered."

3. It is stated in the affidavit accompanying the above I.A.

that in the circumstances the petitioners in the I.A. preferred

representation to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alleppey

and Administrator of the Bank requesting them to pass necessary

orders for keeping in abeyance disbursement/refund of deposit and

other debts due to various creditors of the Bank except payment of

small amounts in day to day transactions until realisation of the debt by

way of surcharge proceedings under Section 68 of the Act from the

delinquent members of the Board of Directors and the delinquent

officers of the Bank or until newly elected Board of Directors of the

Unnumbered Writ Appeal of 2019 (Filing No.34465/2019)

Bank takes charge and realises fund due to the Bank for distributing

among the creditors rateably. They would contend that the learned

Single Judge without noticing the question of discrimination of creditors

in the matter of refund of fixed deposits/payment of debts due to them

from the Bank allowed the writ petition by directing payment of the

amount and in such circumstances, non-interference with the judgment

would result in gross injustice to majority of the creditors of the Bank.

It is raising such grounds that they seek leave to prefer appeal against

the judgment dated 4.4.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 10418 of 2019.

3. In the contextual situation, it is relevant to note that

earlier, the 5th and 6th respondents in the above I.A., who were 4 th and

5th respondents in W.P.(C)No.10418 of 2019, filed W.A.No.1478/2019

against the judgment dated 4.4.2019 passed thereon. In the said

appeal they challenged only the direction to the Bank to forthwith allow

the first respondent therein viz., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10418 of

2019 to operate the Savings Bank Account. We have considered the

question whether there is any legal impediment for the first respondent

therein to operate the Savings Bank Account maintained by him with

the 6th respondent-bank solely because of its financial crisis. No

provision of law was brought to our notice mandating to interdict the

Unnumbered Writ Appeal of 2019 (Filing No.34465/2019)

first respondent therein from operating his Savings Bank Account. After

considering the contention the said appeal was dismissed. As a matter

of fact, the judgment sought to be taken in appeal itself would, reveal

that the stand of the 6 th respondent - Bank before the learned Single

Judge was that it could not stand in the way of the petitioner in the writ

petition, operating his Savings Bank Account. In the said

circumstances and taking note of the admitted position that the Bank in

question is still functioning and transacting business we do not find any

reason to think that any fruitful purpose would be or could be served by

granting leave to the petitioners herein to challenge the judgment

passed in W.P.(C)No.10418 of 2019.

4. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners herein were not

parties to W.P.(C)No.10418 of 2019. It is true that the statements in

the affidavit accompanying the above I.A. would reveal that the

petitioners in the above I.A. have also made fixed deposits with the 6 th

respondent Bank. However, that cannot be a reason for them to

contend that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained

W.P.(C)No.10418 of 2019 and passed the impugned judgment in favour

of the writ petitioner, especially after considering the stand of

respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein against whom direction was fought for.

Unnumbered Writ Appeal of 2019 (Filing No.34465/2019)

We are at a loss to understand as to how the petitioners herein are

aggrieved by the impugned judgment. We do not find any reason for

them to feel aggrieved by the judgment sought to be challenged. If

they have also made fixed deposits with the said Bank it is for them to

work out their remedies to get back their money, in accordance with

law. From the indisputable position that the 5th and 6th respondents in

the above I.A. who were respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.

(C)No.10418/2019, have challenged the judgment in question

unsuccessfully and the tenor of the pleadings of the petitioners in

paragraphs 2 and 3 of the above I.A. we are inclined to think that the

attempt of the petitioners in the captioned I.A. is to conduct a proxy

war on behalf of the 5th and 6th respondents herein who have already

lost the battle.

5. When once it is found from the aforesaid circumstances

that no fruitful purpose would be served by granting the petitioners in

the I.A. leave to prefer an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and

further that the said judgment in no way cause any impediment for

them to take recourse to legal remedies to get the money which they

have deposited with the 6th respondent-Bank we think that it is a

befitting case where we should decline leave to the petitioners herein to

Unnumbered Writ Appeal of 2019 (Filing No.34465/2019)

prefer appeal against the judgment dated 4.4.2019 in W.P.(C)No.

10418 of 2019. Accordingly, we decline to grant leave to the

petitioners in the above I.A. to prefer appeal against the judgment in

W.P.(C)No.10418 of 2019. In the circumstances, the above

Interlocutory Application stand dismissed, of course, without prejudice

to the right of the petitioners to work out their remedy to get back

money, if deposited with the 6 th respondent - Bank, in accordance with

law.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH Judge

TKS