Mandamus and public duty under Article 226: repayment of a matured deposit by a co-operative society was treated as enforceable.
Under Article 226, mandamus may issue to a co-operative society where repayment of a matured deposit is treated as a public duty, because writ jurisdiction turns on the nature of the duty performed rather than the body's form. The article also states that Article 226 is not confined to enforcement of fundamental rights; the High Court may protect other legal rights against persons amenable to its jurisdiction. It further notes that the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act does not automatically bar relief, and appellate interference is limited unless the discretion exercised below is arbitrary or perverse. On that basis, the repayment direction with interest was sustained.
Issues: (i) whether a writ of mandamus could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a co-operative society for refund of a deposit on maturity on the ground that the duty to repay was a public duty; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable only on the basis of violation of fundamental rights; and (iii) whether availability of an alternative remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 required the Court to decline relief.
Issue (i): whether a writ of mandamus could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a co-operative society for refund of a deposit on maturity on the ground that the duty to repay was a public duty.
Analysis: The duty to return the deposit on maturity was treated as a public duty. The nature of the duty, and not merely the character of the body, was held to be material for writ jurisdiction. A person or body discharging a public duty was held amenable to writ jurisdiction, and mandamus could issue to compel performance of that duty.
Conclusion: The writ of mandamus was maintainable and the direction to repay the deposit with interest was upheld.
Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was maintainable only on the basis of violation of fundamental rights.
Analysis: The restriction that a writ can be maintained only for enforcement of fundamental rights was held to apply to proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, not to the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226. The High Court may enforce other legal rights against persons amenable to its jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable even without alleging violation of a fundamental right.
Issue (iii): whether availability of an alternative remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 required the Court to decline relief.
Analysis: The Court held that once the Single Judge had exercised discretion to grant relief, appellate interference was warranted only if that discretion was arbitrary or perverse. The exercise of discretion was not found to be arbitrary or perverse, and the alternative remedy did not justify interference in appeal.
Conclusion: The plea based on alternative remedy was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The order directing repayment of the deposit with interest was sustained and the writ appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ of mandamus may issue to a person or body performing a public duty, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not, by itself, preclude relief where the Court validly exercises its discretion.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
