Writ jurisdiction over co-operative societies is limited; a civil loan dispute did not justify forcing return of title deeds.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable to compel a co-operative society to return title deeds and execute release deeds in a housing loan dispute. The Court held that writ jurisdiction is available only where a body discharges a public duty or statutory obligation, and that such jurisdiction does not extend to every dispute involving a co-operative society. As the controversy arose from a civil loan transaction, and no bye-law, regulation, or statutory provision imposed a duty to return the documents on demand, the petitioners could not invoke writ relief. The existence of an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act also supported rejection of the petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable to compel a co-operative society to return title deeds and execute release deeds in a dispute arising from a housing loan transaction.

Analysis: The remedy under Article 226 is available where a body discharges a public duty or a statutory obligation, but the existence of such jurisdiction does not make every dispute against a co-operative society amenable to writ relief. The dispute here arose out of a loan transaction of a civil nature. No bye-law, regulation, or statutory provision was shown imposing a duty on the apex society to return the title deeds on demand merely because the petitioners had repaid the loan to the primary society. The petitioners were aware that the documents had been placed with the apex society as part of the refinance arrangement, and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 provided an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism under Section 69(1)(e).

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the question was answered against the petitioners.

---