Writ jurisdiction upheld for matured fixed deposits where co-operative society's repayment liability was undisputed and statutorily supervised
A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable to seek release of matured fixed deposit amounts from a co-operative society carrying on banking business under statutory supervision, because the Registrar's regulatory control and the society's public law character supported writ jurisdiction. On the merits, the fixed deposit liability was undisputed and the receipts showed repayment on maturity, so the petitioner was found entitled to payment. The Court therefore allowed the writ petitions and issued a mandatory direction to pay the matured deposit amounts within the time fixed.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to seek release of matured fixed deposit amounts from a co-operative society carrying on banking business under the control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies; (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for payment of the matured fixed deposit amounts.
Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to seek release of matured fixed deposit amounts from a co-operative society carrying on banking business under the control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
Analysis: The society was treated as a body corporate under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, with its affairs governed by the statutory scheme and the supervisory role of the Registrar. The banking activity was stated to be carried on with permission of the Registrar, and the Court accepted that such regulatory control gave rise to a public law element sufficient to invoke writ jurisdiction. The Court also followed the earlier view that there was no legal inhibition against directing release of matured fixed deposits in such a situation.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable against the co-operative society.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for payment of the matured fixed deposit amounts.
Analysis: The amounts due under the fixed deposit receipts were not in dispute, and the receipts themselves showed a deposit obligation repayable on maturity. The Court found no substantiated basis to deny payment and held that the petitioner had established entitlement to the relief sought.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to payment of the matured fixed deposit amounts.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed and a mandatory direction was issued to pay the matured fixed deposit amounts within the time fixed by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a co-operative society carries on banking business under statutory supervision and the liability to repay matured fixed deposits is undisputed, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked to compel payment.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
