Purchasers challenged an order directing refund of shopping complex advances with interest instead of allotting promised rooms. The High Court held the advance scheme illegal under Cooperative Societies rules, found no absolute right to shop allotment, and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed with no interference in the impugned Government Order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/17TH CHAITHRA, 1937
WP(C).No. 16137 of 2010 (N)
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
1. M.P.PONNAPPAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN, MANIYEZHATH HOUSE, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALA,
2. R.PRASAD, S/O. RAGHAVAN,
3. ROBIN A.G., S/O. A.S. GOPALAN,
4. SRINIVASAN T.B. S/O. BAHULEYAN,
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.V.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), ALAPPUZHA.
3. THE CHERTHALA TALUK COCONUT MERKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.4218, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES R3 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 16137 of 2010 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
--------------------------------------
Msv/
-2-
-2-
WP(C).No. 16137 of 2010 (N)
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Ms v/
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
W.P.(c) No. 16137 OF 2010-N
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF APRIL, 2015.
J U D G M E N T
History of the case in brief is that, the petitioners have advanced different amounts to the 3rd respondent Cooperative Society during the year 1999 for construction of a shopping complex, allegedly on the promise that they will be provided with rooms in the complex, after completion of the construction. Exhibit P1 series are the receipts given with respect to payments of the advance amounts. Exhibit P2 series letters would indicate that the 3rd respondent society had undertaken to provide shop rooms in the shopping complex. Grievance of the petitioners is that a new managing committee which had taken over charge of the 3rd respondent society had backed out from the promise. When the society initiated steps to induct strangers in the rooms in question, the petitioners have approached the 2nd respondent by raising complaint. They have further approached this court in a writ petition filed as W.P (c)
W.P.(c) No. 16137/2010
-2-
No.19942/2006. Through judgment dated 19-02-2006 this court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the complaint and to take an appropriate decision. In Ext.P3 proceedings of the 2nd respondent found that the procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent Society with respect to acceptance of advance and the undertaking given to provide rooms in the shopping complex, is totally illegal and is violative of procedure contemplated under the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules. The 2nd respondent took note of the fact that other rooms in the shopping complex were auctioned for various amounts ranging between Rs.3,70,000/- and Rs.5,12,101/-. Therefore the 2nd respondent took a decision directing the 3rd respondent society to allot rooms to the petitioners by taking deposit of a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- each, being the least amount for which other rooms were let out. It was further directed that the advance amounts received from the petitioner shall be refunded along with interest at the rate applicable to overdraft facility availed by the society from District Co-operative Bank.
W.P.(c) No. 16137/2010
-3-
W.P.(c) No. 16137/2010
-4-
taken a subsequent decision, not to allow any shop rooms to the petitioners, and to refund the amount of advance along with interest, it was ordered such decision is approved, subject to condition that the petitioner shall be given preference in the matter of allotment of rooms if the society takes any decision in future to let out the rooms in question.
W.P.(c) No. 16137/2010
-5-
matter based on the contention that the petitioners are not in a position to make payment of an amount of Rs.3,70,000/as security deposit. But it is evident from Ext.P5 that the 2nd respondent had categorically found that the petitioners have no right to claim assignment of any shop rooms based on the undertakings made by the 3rd respondent at the time of receipt of the advance amounts, because the receipt of advance based on any such undertaking made by the society was totally illegal, irregular and improper. Therefore this court is of the opinion that the matter was considered by the 2nd respondent in its real perspective as directed by the appellate authority in Ext.P2 order. The petitioners are not in position to point out any authority vested on the 3rd respondent permitting acceptance of advance from the petitioners at the stage of construction of the building based an undertaking to allot rooms to them. On the other hand it is evident from the impugned proceedings that provisions contained in the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder stipulated for conduct of public auction with respect to letting out of the rooms
W.P.(c) No. 16137/2010
-6-
contained in shopping complexes held by the Co-operative societies. It is noticed that interest of the petitioners have been protected by ordering repayment of the advance amount, along with maximum rate of interest applicable with respect to deposits made during relevant period. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted with respect to the impugned decision.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
AMG
True copy
P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Government Order directing the Cooperative Society to refund advance amounts with interest instead of allotting rooms.
Whether petitioners have any legal right to claim assignment of shop rooms based on past promises of advance payments.
M.P.PONNAPPAN AND OTHERS
STATE OF KERALA
JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G)
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
