2018 (3) TMI 1940 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - Refusal to refund the amount covered by the fixed deposit receipt to the petitioner bank - whether a writ petition is maintainable or not against a co-operative society? - HELD THAT - A Full Bench of this court has held in John v. Liquidator 2005 (11) TMI 528 - KERALA HIGH COURT that a writ will lie against a co-operative society where the duty owed by the society is of a public nature or when there is infringement of any statutory provision by the society. The decision of the Full Bench in John's case 2005 (11) TMI 528 - KERALA HIGH COURT has been confirmed by a Larger Bench of this court in ASSOCIATION OF MILMA OFFICERS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA 2014 (12) TMI 1385 - KERALA HIGH COURT . There is no pleadings in the writ petitions regarding violation of any statutory provisions by the appellants or breach of any public duty by them. In the absence of such pleadings, we do not think it proper or necessary to enter on a finding on the issue regarding maintainability of writ petition against a co-operative society. The expression 'dispute' is defined in Section 2(i) of the Act. Section 2(i) reads thus dispute means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishment or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society, whether such claim be admitted or not. A bare perusal of this definition would show that a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society is dispute whether the claim is admitted or not. The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. If alternative statutory remedies are available, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be entertained. This is the normal rule. But, there are exceptions to this rule. Where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, the writ jurisdiction of the Court shall be exercised. Where the statutory authority acts in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or when it acts in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the High Court will entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Where statutory remedies are entirely ill -suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, then also the High Court would be justified in invoking the writ jurisdiction. In the instant cases, the writ petitions do not satisfy any of the conditions for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The pleadings in the writ petitions contain no statement that the grievances fall within any of the well-defined exceptions. The writ petitioners have no case that the appellants have violated any statutory provisions or that they have not acted in accordance with the provisions of the statute or that they have acted in total violation of the principles of natural justice. Writ appeals allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions against a cooperative society.
2. Availability and adequacy of alternative statutory remedies under Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969.
3. Conditions under which the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against a Cooperative Society:
The primary contention by the appellants was that writ petitions are not maintainable against cooperative societies. The learned single Judge, however, repelled this contention, referring to the Full Bench decision in John v. Liquidator, which held that a writ will lie against a cooperative society where the duty owed by the society is of a public nature or when there is an infringement of any statutory provision by the society. The judgment also referenced a Larger Bench decision in Association of Milma Officers’ Ksheera Bhavan v. State of Kerala, confirming the same. However, it was noted that the writ petitions in question did not contain pleadings regarding the violation of any statutory provisions or breach of any public duty by the appellants.

2. Availability and Adequacy of Alternative Statutory Remedies:
The appellants argued that the writ petitioners had an effective alternative statutory remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, which mandates that disputes between societies should be referred to the Cooperative Arbitration Court or the Registrar. The learned single Judge’s decision to allow the writ petitions was contested on the grounds that the writ petitioners bypassed this statutory remedy. The court cited several precedents, including Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, emphasizing that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy is available unless the case falls within certain exceptions, such as violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure or principles of natural justice.

3. Conditions for Invoking High Court's Writ Jurisdiction:
The court elaborated on the conditions under which the High Court's writ jurisdiction can be invoked despite the availability of alternative remedies. It cited various Supreme Court decisions, including Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. and U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey, which outline that writ jurisdiction should be exercised judiciously and only in extraordinary situations where statutory remedies are ill-suited. The court found that the writ petitions did not satisfy any of these conditions. There were no allegations that the appellants violated statutory provisions, acted against the principles of natural justice, or that the statutory remedies were ill-suited to address the grievances.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the writ petitions should not have been entertained by the learned single Judge due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed.