9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion Bench. The Division Bench noticed the contention of the third respondent that the powers vested in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be exercised for the purpose of such matter, as there was no violation of any statutory rules or byelaws; and therefore, thought that the matter be heard by a Full Bench. Thus, the writ petition has come up for consideration before us. 2. The petitioners, for the purpose of house construction, availed of loans from the second respondent - a primary housing Co-operative Society, by depositing their title deeds as security for the loan amount and also executing registered mortgage deeds. They have repaid the entire loan amount with interest, according to them, to the second respondent. The second respondent is now facing liquidation. The first respondent is the liquidator. The Second respondent obtained finance from the third respondent - the Apex Co-operative Housing Federation and it was out of that amount, the second respondent disbursed the loan to the petitioners. For the purpose of getting refinance, the second respondent had, in turn, handed over the title deeds of several loanees, including the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and the Rules. The decision in Suter Paul v. Sobhana English Medium High School (2003 (3) KLT 1019) is also relied on. 5. It is submitted by the respondents that though a Co-operative Society is governed by the statute, the transaction between the parties leading to the lis is of a civil nature. There is no statutory obligation to accede to the demands of the petitioners to return the document. The document is retained on valid reasons of the amount advanced to the 2nd respondent which made use of it to advance loan to the petitioners. The amount is still due from the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent. This is, therefore, not a matter where this court shall exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is further submitted by the respondents that the petitioners cannot plead ignorance of the arrangement of the title deed being deposited with the third respondent because, the second respondent is a member of the third respondent, Apex Society and the third respondent is advancing amounts for disbursement to the members of the second respondent on certain specified conditions as mentioned in the loan application and also in the Regulation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stify a timely judicial interdict or mandate as held in Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union (1976 (2) SCC 82). The mentor of law is justice and a potent drug should be judiciously administered. Thus under Article 226 in appropriate situations, writ can be issued, as held in Engineering Mazdoor Sabha V. Hind Cycles Ltd. (AIR 1963 SC 874), even to any person or authority . It is not, however, necessary that the person or authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed, need be a public authority or an official. Mandamus would also lie even against a company constituted by a statute, for the purpose of fulfilling public responsibilities as held in Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual ({1969} 1 SCC 585). The words any person or authority used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owned by the person or authority to the affected party. No ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olution of the company, like any other shareholder. Even then, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in Dwarka Nath v. ITO (AIR 1966 SC 81), is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it, ex facie, confers a wide power to meet injustice wherever it is found. 10. It is considering these precedents that the Apex Court in the decision in U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank's case found that a writ petition by an employee, whose service conditions were governed by the statutory rules, was maintainable. Though thus, the writ petition was found to be maintainable against a Co-operative Society under such circumstances, that decision, as contended by the counsel for the petitioners, is not an authority for a proposition that in each and every case, a writ will lie against a Co-operative Society. In other words, a writ will lie against a Co-operative society only when the duty owed by the Co-operative society if of a public nature or when there is infringement of any statutory rules by such a Co-operative Society. 11. The Apex Court, noting the decision in U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank's case held in Supriyo Basu v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way of a writ petition, but lies elsewhere, where the rights and liabilities of the parties are to be examined closely on evidence. So this writ petition cannot be entertained, as the reliefs sought for fall outside the scope of writ proceedings. 14. Another contention raised in this case is whether writ could be denied when the facts involved are not disputed at all. Even in a case where facts are admitted, the jurisdiction will not be exercised unless the authority, against whom a writ is sought for, owes a public duty or a statutory duty to act in a particular manner towards the person who asks for such a writ. Therefore, the decision in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited (MANU/SC/1080/2003 : 2004 3 SCC 553) does not have any application. On the other hand, as again held in U.P. State Co-op. Land Development Bank's case itself; when any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the state, an instrumentality of the State, a company or Co-operative society or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. Right that is infringed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
