Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1940 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - Refusal to refund the amount covered by the fixed deposit receipt to the petitioner bank - whether a writ petition is maintainable or not against a co-operative society? - HELD THAT:- A Full Bench of this court has held in John v. Liquidator [2005 (11) TMI 528 - KERALA HIGH COURT] 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 [2005 (11) TMI 528 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has been confirmed by a Larger Bench of this court in ASSOCIATION OF MILMA OFFICERS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA [2014 (12) TMI 1385 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. There is no pleadings in the writ petitions regarding violation of any statutory provisions by the appellants or breach of any public duty by them. In the absence of such pleadings, we do not think it proper or necessary to enter on a finding on the issue regarding maintainability of writ petition against a co-operative society. The expression 'dispute' is defined in Section 2(i) of the Act. Section 2(i) reads thus: "dispute" means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishment or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society, whether such claim be admitted or not. A bare perusal of this definition would show that a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society is dispute whether the claim is admitted or not. 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 the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, the writ jurisdiction of the Court shall be exercised. Where the statutory authority acts in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or when it acts in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the High Court will entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Where statutory remedies are entirely ill -suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, then also the High Court would be justified in invoking the writ jurisdiction. In the instant cases, the writ petitions do not satisfy any of the conditions for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The pleadings in the writ petitions contain no statement that the grievances fall within any of the well-defined exceptions. The writ petitioners have no case that the appellants have violated any statutory provisions or that they have not acted in accordance with the provisions of the statute or that they have acted in total violation of the principles of natural justice. Writ appeals allowed.
|