Dismissed

Manheri Lakshmi Amma v. Registrar

Kerala HC8 Dec 2016WP(C)/10179/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a cooperative bank's selective application of a government circular, alleging discrimination based on political affiliation in loan benefits. The court held such factual inquiries exceed its scope and decline interference.

What did the court decide?

Interference declined; writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate forum under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act.

Manheri Lakshmi Amma Vs Registrar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10179 of 2011 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. MANHERI LAKSHMI AMMA, W/O. LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, LAKSHMI SADANAM, THILLANKERI,, P.O. THILLANKERI, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. MANHERI RAMACHANDRAN,

¶9

S/O. LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, LAKSHMI SADANAM, THILLANKERI, P.O.THILLANKERI, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3. VALSALA.P.K, W/O. MANHERI RAMACHANDRAN, LAKSHMI SADANAM, THILLANKERI, P.O.THILLANKERI, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

4. MANHERI MOHANAN,

¶12

S/O. LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, LAKSHMI SADANAM, THILLANKERI, P.O.THILLANKERI, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH

¶14

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶15

1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

2. MATTANNUR CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MATTANNUR - 670 702.

¶17

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.V.ANANDAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 10179 of 2011 (V)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 1/09 DATED 08.01.2009.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.03.2009 SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS.1,00,000/- BY THE SECOND PETITIONER TOWARDS LOAN NO. ML 834.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2(A): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.03.2009 SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS. 1,00,000/- BY THE SECOND PETITIONER TOWARDS LOAN NO. ML 834.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2(B): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.03.2009 SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS. 1,00,000/- BY THE THIRD PETITIONER TOWARDS LOAN NO. ML 833.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2(C): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.03.2009 SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS. 1,00,000/- BY THE FOURTH PETITIONER TOWARDS LOAN NO. ML 832.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2010 IN W.P(C).NO. 10400/09 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 63/10 DATED 23.12.2010

¶30

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2010 IN C.P.NO. 828(4)/10/S.I.C ISSUED BY THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER.

¶31

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DIRECTION DATED 25.03.2009 DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 21.02.2009.

¶34

EXHIBIT P9: THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 03.03.2009.

¶35

EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.01.2012 ISSUED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, ULIYIL BRANCH TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶36

EXHIBIT P10(A): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.01.2012 ISSUED BY BRANCH MANAGER, SIVAPURAM BRANCH TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶37

EXHIBIT P10(B): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.01.2012 ISSUED BY BRANCH MANAGER, EDAYANNUR BRANCH TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶38

WP(C).No. 10179 of 2011 (V)

¶39

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶40

EXHIBIT R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.06.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R2(B): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE, DATED 24.01.2009. EXHIBIT R2(C): TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERRED LETTER DATED 22.01.2011. EXHIBIT R2(D): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 1(A) DATED 07.04.2009. EXHIBIT R2(E): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (GENERAL), KANNUR.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 10179 of 2011

¶46

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2016

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

1.This writ petition is filed by the borrowers of the 2^nd respondent bank. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the bank is selective in applying Ext.P1 Circular No.1/2008 dated 08.01.2009 issued by the Government. According to the petitioners, the bank applied Ext.P1 circular based on the political affiliation of the borrowers.

¶49

2.In fact, writ petitioners 2 & 3 had approached this Court in WP(C) No.10400/2009 seeking similar reliefs. However, this Court, taking note of an earlier decision of this Court that such circular is not binding on the Co-operative societies and it is open for the Co-operative societies to decide whether they should accept it or not, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the bank to consider the petitioners' claim.

¶50

3.As could be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 10179 of 2011

¶52

..2..

¶53

respondent bank, they have applied Ext.P1 circular in a selective manner. According to them, the criteria adopted by the bank is to extend the benefit of Ext.P1 circular to those borrowers, who are suffering from serious illness or affected with natural calamities or to the legal representatives of the borrowers. According to the bank, they are justified in adopting such norms taking note of Ext.P3 judgment passed by this Court.

¶54

4.According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent bank, in view of the fact that the bank can take a decision in its own way to formulate the policy from the commercial point of view, borrowers cannot claim that they should be given the benefit in par with other borrowers.

¶55

5.If the stand of the respondent bank, as projected in this case, is correct, no doubt, the bank is justified in having such a policy formulated to protect the interest of the bank. However, the petitioners' case now projected is the discrimination in extending the benefit of Ext.P1 circular. This discrimination, essentially, points out the

¶56

W.P.(C) No. 10179 of 2011

¶57

..3..

¶58

factual factors in extending the benefits. From the pleadings in this case, discrimination cannot be figured out, obviously, for the reason that it is beyond the scope of this Court, which has to be adjudicated by the competent adjudicating authority.

¶59

6.In that scenario, this Court is of the view that if the petitioners have a case that there is a discrimination based on facts, as Ext.P1 circular is applied not based on any policy of the bank and they have been denied the benefit, only because of political affiliation, they can seek the appropriate remedy in terms of Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act before the appropriate forum. As noted above, it is beyond the scope of consideration of this Court to decide upon the question of facts, especially, when an alternate remedy is available.

¶60

7.Therefore, interference is declined and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners as above. No costs.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶63

bka/-

Manheri Lakshmi Amma v. Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manheri Lakshmi Amma v. Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahim Vs Mara Pandiyan

Nissarudin Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Rajamalar Vs State of Kerala

Jijina M.P Vs State of Kerala

Supply Co. Workers Federation Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation

A.Abdulla Haji Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative So,Kannu