Dismissed

Johny Urumeese and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC30 May 2016WP(C)/5706/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought enforcement of agreements for room allotment in a reconstructed cooperative bank building. The bank cited RBI directions under Section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act prohibiting non-banking assets. The Court held that the legality of such directions was already adjudicated and not revisitable, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition challenging the orders of the Cooperative Registrar and Joint Registrar dismissed.

Johny Urumeese and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).NO. 5706 OF 2010 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. JOHNY URUMEES S/O VARGHESE, MAMPILLY HOUSE, ALUVA-1.

¶8

2. TONY PAUL S/O PAUL DOMINIC, OORAKATH HOUSE, PIPELINE ROAD, NAZARATH, ALUVA.

¶9

3. RAPHAEL LAZAR, S/O.A.O.LAZAR, ALOOKARAN HOUSE, U.C.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA-2.

¶10

4. T.M.RAHIM S/O T.P.HYDROS, AYANIKKATTU PARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM, ALANGAD.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

¶12

SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR,

¶16

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

3. THE ALWAYE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MARKET ROAD, ALUVA REPRESENTED BY ITS, GENERAL MANAGER.

¶18

4. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, URBAN BANK DEPARTMETN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAGHUKUMAR (ALUVA)

¶20

R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.) R4 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.

¶21

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.S SAJEEV

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).NO. 5706 OF 2010 (K)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 08.11.1990 EXECUTED BETWEEN 3^RD RESPONDENT AND 1^ST PETITIONER

¶27

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.(RT.)NO.96/95/CO-OPERATIVE DATED 23.02.1995 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATIVE DEPT.

¶28

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 04.11.1998 EXECUTED BETWEEN 3^RD RESPONDENT AND 3^RD PETITIONER

¶29

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10.05.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE 1^ST PETITIONER TO THE 3^RD RESPONDENT

¶30

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 16.05.2002 ISSUED BY 3^RD RESPONDENT

¶31

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT ION OP.NO.25872/2002 DATED 22.10.2008

¶32

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.CRB 2342/09/K DATED 29.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS

¶33

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.22472/09

¶34

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.1.2010 OF 1^ST RESPONDENT

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶36

ANNEXURE R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF OP.NO.25872/2002 WITH EXHIBITS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶37

ANNEXURE R4(B): TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (4^TH RESPONDENT) IN OP.NO.25872/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶38

ANNEXURE R4(C): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.22/10/08 IN OP.NO.25872/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶39

ANNEXURE R4(D):TRUE COPY OF DECISIONO.C.R.B.2342/09/K.DIS. DT.29.04.2009 OF JRCS

¶40

ANNEXURE R4(E): TRUE COPY GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.24/10 DT.16/01/2010

¶41

ANNEXURE R4(F): TRUE COPY OF RBI LETTER UBD (T)NO.242/16.01.02/200203 DT.24^TH JULY, 2002

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P A TO JUDGE

¶44

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.5706 of 2010

¶45

............................................................. Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2016

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

The petitioners are tenants in a three storied building owned by the 3^rd respondent. They had occupied 4 rooms on the ground floor, while the 1^st floor was occupied by the 3^rd respondent. As the building was in a dilapidated condition and had to be reconstructed, the petitioners entered into agreements with the 3^rd respondent wherein the 3^rd respondent agreed to complete the reconstruction within a year, and also undertook to provide rooms in the new building to the petitioners. It would appear that subsequent to the reconstruction, and acting on a complaint from a member of the 3^rd respondent, the 2^nd respondent rescinded the resolution dated 15.09.1990 of the 3^rd respondent which had resolved to provide rooms in the reconstructed building to the petitioners. The said decision was challenged in an appeal before the 1^st respondent which was allowed by setting aside the decision of the 2^nd respondent. The 3^rd respondent challenged the said appellate order before this Court in O.P.No.11671 of 1996. There were also steps taken to evict the petitioners in the meanwhile.

¶48

-2-

¶49

W.P.(C). No.5706 of 2010

¶50

Negotiations entered into between the petitioners and the respondents, however, led to separate agreements being entered into by the 3^rd respondent with the petitioners, a sample of which is produced as Ext.P3 in the writ petition, In the said agreements, the 3^rd respondent agreed to allot one room each to the petitioners, on the ground floor of the newly constructed building. In view of the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the 3^rd respondent, O.P.No.11671 of 1995 was later withdrawn. After the completion of the construction of the building, the 3^rd respondent was constrained to take a stand against Ext.P3 agreement, to allot rooms to the petitioners in the reconstructed building. It was the stand of the 3^rd respondent that the 4^th respondent was not permitting it to let out the shop rooms in the building, by placing reliance on Section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act, and hence, in the light of the said directions of the 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent could not honour the agreements entered into with the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, approached this Court through O.P.No.25872 of 2002. The prayers in the said original petition were as follows:

¶51

-3-

¶52

W.P.(C). No.5706 of 2010

¶53

“(i) declare that 4^th respondent has no authority under section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act to prohibit letting out of shop rooms by 3^rd respondent to petitioners in pursuance of Ext.P3.

¶54

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order or direction compelling 4^th respondent to accord permission to 1^st respondent to let out shop rooms to petitioners in pursuance of Ext.P3;

¶55

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order or direction compelling 2^nd respondent to issue necessary direction to 1^st respondent to let out the rooms to petitioners in pursuance of Ext.P3; and

¶56

(iv) issue such other writ order or direction as may be necessary to the interest of justice”

¶57

The said original petition was disposed by Ext.P6 judgment dated 22.10.2008 whereby this Court, taking note of the intervening developments, directed the petitioners to approach the 2^nd respondent who was to take appropriate action in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners and the 1^st respondent, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is relevant to note that Ext.P6 judgment, to the extent it did not consider the first two prayers of the petitioners in O.P.No.25872 of 2002, regarding the validity of the directions of the 4^th respondent, relying on Section 9 of the Banking Regulation

¶58

-4-

¶59

W.P.(C). No.5706 of 2010

¶60

Act, was not carried in appeal by the petitioners in any intra court appeal. The 2^nd respondent thereafter, acting on the directions in Ext.P6 judgment of this Court, proceeded to pass Ext.P7 order dated 29.04.2009 upholding the stand of the 3^rd respondent that, in view of the directions issued by the 4^th respondent, it could not offer the petitioners the shop rooms in the reconstructed building. The petitioners therefore preferred a further appeal before the 1^st respondent which was also rejected by Ext.P9 order dated 16.01.2010 taking note of the fact that the 3^rd respondent could not act contrary to the directions of the 4^th respondent in the matter of letting out rooms in the building. In the writ petition, Exts.P5, P7 and P9 orders of the 3^rd respondent, 2^nd respondent and 1^st respondent respectively are impugned.

¶61

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4^th respondent wherein it is stated that the 4^th respondent had required the 3^rd respondent bank to get the tenants vacated from its premises and dispose the non-banking assets in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act. The gist of the contentions of the 4^th respondent is that inasmuch

¶62

W.P.(C). No.5706 of 2010

¶63

-5-

¶64

as Section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act prohibited Co-operative Banks from holding such immovable property, other than what was required by it for its own use, the 3^rd respondent could not hold on to the reconstructed building or such portion of it as it was intending to let out to the petitioners herein.

¶65

I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.P.S.Sajeev, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.R.Raghukumar, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, and Sri.Vivek Varghese P.J, the learned Standing counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶66

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, in the instant case, the directions given by the 4^th respondent to the 3^rd respondent, which effectively prevented the 3^rd respondent from honouring its commitments under the agreements entered into the petitioners with regard to allotment of rooms in the reconstructed building, had been challenged by the petitioners before this Court in O.P.No.25872 of 2002. On that occasion, by Ext.P6 judgment,

¶67

-6-

¶68

W.P.(C). No.5706 of 2010

¶69

this Court directed the petitioners to approach the 2^nd respondent for a resolution of the dispute. As a matter of fact, the dispute with regard to the legality of the directions issued by the 4^th respondent to the 3^rd respondent bank was not one that could have been resolved by the 2^nd respondent inasmuch as the said respondent did not have any jurisdiction to decide the issues that arose under the Banking Regulation Act. In that view of the matter, Ext.P7 order of the 2^nd respondent, which finds that the 3^rd respondent could not have allotted rooms in the reconstructed building owing to the directions issued by the 4^th respondent, cannot be said to be illegal and, for the same reason, Ext.P9 order of the 1^st respondent, that upholds Ext.P7 order of the 2^nd respondent, also cannot be found fault with. The decision of the petitioners not to challenge Ext.P6 judgment, to the extent it did not specifically consider the issue of legality of the directions of the 4^th respondent to the 3^rd respondent placing reliance on Section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act, in further proceedings, must be seen as fatal to its attempt in this writ petition to reagitate the said issue at this distance of time. This Court cannot now entertain the challenge against the legality of the directions

¶70

-7-

¶71

W.P.(C). No.5706 of 2010

¶72

issued by the 4^th respondent to the 3^rd respondent, in the absence of any challenge against Exts.P6 judgment of this Court. In my view, the decision of the first and 2^nd respondent, based on the directions of the 4^th respondent to the 3^rd respondent, cannot be found fault with and, if it is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to a specific performance of the agreement entered into between them and the 3^rd respondent, that is a matter that will have to be pursued before a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

¶73

In the result, the writ petition in its challenge against Exts.P5 and P7 and P9 orders fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶76

mns/30.05.16

Johny Urumeese and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johny Urumeese and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vidyadhiraja Memorial Model H.S. Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Shajahan Yoosaf Sahib Vs Office of the Insurance Ombudsman

Sukumaran Vs the Kerala Khadi & Village Industries

A.Subramanian Vs Hariharan

Indian Bank Vs a. Subramanian

Gopalan M.C Vs State of Kerala