TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the fixed deposit receipt to the petitioner bank. The writ petition was filed for issuing a direction to the Society to pay the amount covered by the fixed deposit receipt to the petitioner bank with future interest. 3. The Society filed counter affidavit in the writ petition admitting the liability to pay the amount to the bank. But, the Society contended that no writ petition is maintainable against a cooperative society. The Society also contended that the writ jurisdiction of the court cannot 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by allowing the writ petitions and directing the appellants to repay the amounts due to the writ petitioners. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners contended that the appellants have admitted the liability to pay amount to the writ petitioners and therefore, there is no dispute to be referred to arbitration as provided under Section 69 of the Act. Learned counsel for 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd.) as follows: "It is the admitted fact that the appellant and the contesting respondent are the societies registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and that the contesting respondent had made certain deposit with the appellant's society. If, for any reason, the appellant's society did not refund any amount deposited, there would be a dispute between the appellant's society and 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 rushe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tyawati Tondon: AIR 2010 SC 3413, the Apex Court has reiterated the position as follows: "We are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and 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". 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ociety and that includes a dispute between a member of the Primary Society and the Apex Society to which the Primary Society is a member as per Clause(e) of S.69(1) of the Act. This is a fair and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners, where the rights and liabilities of the parties will be decided at length by an arbitrator invested with certain powers of the civil court". 22. As noticed earlier, the decision in 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 ....