2005 (11) TMI 528 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition seeking a direction to a Co-operative Society to return the title deeds.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The primary issue was whether a writ petition seeking a direction to a Co-operative Society to return the title deeds of properties mortgaged by the petitioners to obtain a housing loan is maintainable. The petitioners relied on previous judgments (Ext. P5 and Ext. P6) where similar directions were issued. However, the learned single Judge opined that such civil disputes should be resolved by a civil court or an arbitrator, leading to the matter being referred to a Division Bench, and subsequently to a Full Bench.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226:
The petitioners argued that the Co-operative Societies, being public bodies governed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, are amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. They cited various precedents, including U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, to support their contention that a writ petition is maintainable even against a person or body performing public duties. The respondents countered that the transaction was of a civil nature without any statutory obligation to return the documents, and thus, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226.

3. Existence of an Efficacious Alternative Remedy:
The respondents emphasized that the petitioners were aware of the arrangement involving the third respondent and that the matter should be resolved through the machinery provided under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which deals with disputes between members of a society and the Apex Society. The Court agreed, noting that the petitioners had not pointed out any bye-law, regulation, rule, or statutory provision mandating the third respondent to return the title deeds. The Court concluded that the petitioners' remedy lies in the established procedure for resolving such disputes through arbitration, as provided under Section 69.

Conclusion:
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the reliefs sought fall outside the scope of writ proceedings. The petitioners were directed to avail themselves of the alternative remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.