9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be exercised to grant the relief prayed for by the bank when alternative statutory remedy is available to the bank. The Society pleaded that it could not pay the amount due to the bank within time due to financial crunch. 4. The learned single Judge held that since the Society has admitted the liability to the bank there is no dispute to be decided by invoking the remedy provided under Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The learned single Judge repelled the contention that no writ petition would lie against a co-operative society. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Society to pay the entire amount due to the bank with interest within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The learned single Judge also directed that the Society will be liable to pay additional interest at the rate of 9%, if it failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Society has filed W.A. No. 1977 of 2017. Writ Appeal No. 2351 of 2017 5. This appeal arises from the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 394 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the respondents also contended that the appellants have the obligation and duty to repay the amount due to the writ petitioners and therefore, the writ petitions are maintainable. 11. On a consideration of the rival contentions raised by the parties, we are of the view that it is really not necessary to decide whether a writ petition is maintainable or not against a co-operative society. A Full Bench of this court has held in John v. Liquidator (2006(1) KLT 11) 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 (supra) has been confirmed by a Larger Bench of this court in Association of Milma Officer's Ksheera Bhavan v. State of Kerala (2015(1) KLT 849). 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 appeals can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contesting respondent and that dispute requires to be resolved as provided under section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. Without filing any dispute, the contesting respondent had rushed to this court by filing the Writ Petition for certain directions to the appellant's society. In our opinion, the first and foremost, the learned single Judge could not have entertained the Writ Petition when alternative and efficacious remedies are available for the contesting respondent. Apart from that, Section 69 of the Act provides itself that the dispute between the parties has to be resolved by filing appropriate dispute before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. Without doing so, the contesting respondent had rushed to this Court. The learned single Judge could not have entertained the Writ Petition and could not have issued any direction . What is stated above by the Division Bench of this Court is complete answer to the contention raised by the writ petitioners that there is no dispute to be referred to the authority concerned under Section 69 of the Act. 16. Does alternative and efficacious statutory remedy bar exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self - imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance . 19. In Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. : AIR 1985 SC 330, it has been held as follows: Art.226 is not meant to short - circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill - suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n John v. Liquidator (supra) has been approved by a Larger Bench of this Court in Association of Milma Officers' Ksheera Bhavan v. State of Kerala (2015 (1) KLT 849). 23. The decisions referred to above show that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory remedies available to the aggrieved person. 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 statutor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
