IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 23600 of 2018 PETITIONERS 1 P.MOHAMMED, NIHAL MANZHIL, KATTAYAD P.O., VELLAMUNDA, WAYANAD DISTRICT.670 731. 2 SHAHEENA V.K, THOLAN HOUSE, NIHAL MANZHIL, KATTAYAD P.O., VELLAMUNDA, WAYANAD DISTRICT.670 731. BY ADV.SRI.P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENTS 1. JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 670 645. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.670 731. 3. THE SECRETARY, VELLAMUNDA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, VELLAMUNDA, WAYANAD DISTRICT.670 731. R1&R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER : SMT.C.S.SHEEJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23600 of 2018 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17/10/2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 8/11/2017. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN OTP SETTLEMENT IN THE NAME 1ST PETITIONER DATED 24/02/2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN OTP SETTLEMENT IN THE NAME 2ND PETITIONER DATED 02.03.2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 06.04.2018. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE bpr [ENTITY], J. [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 25th day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT
The petitioners are father and daughter. The 1 st petitioner was the President of Vellamunda Service Co- operative Bank. The 1st petitioner, his brother and his daughter, who is the 2nd petitioner, had availed certain loans from the said Bank. According to the petitioners, the liability outstanding in respect of those loan transactions were settled after availing the [ACT]. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 order of surcharge dated 06.04.2018 issued by the 1 st respondent Joint Registrar, in exercise of his powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
[CASE NUMBER] :-2-:
3. The only ground raised in this writ petition is that, since the petitioners have settled the loan liability under the [ACT], recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 order of surcharge is only to harass them.
4. Ext.P6 order is one issued by the 1st respondent Joint Registrar, in exercise of his powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Surcharge proceedings initiated against the petitioners commenced by the issuance of Ext.P1 notice dated 17.10.2016, enclosing therewith a copy of the report submitted by the enquiry officer under [SECTION] of the Act. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply. Subsequent to Ext.P2 reply, the 1st respondent Joint Registrar issued Ext.P3 notice regarding the personal hearing scheduled on 22.11.2017. Ext.P3 notice was issued to the petitioners and also to one [ENTITY], who is the Secretary of the Bank. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent issued Ext.P6 order of surcharge.
5. [SECTION] of the [ACT] deals [CASE NUMBER] :-3-:
with appeals to other authorities. As per [SECTION], an appeal shall lie against any order made by any person exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar. As per [SECTION], an appeal under sub-section (1) of that Section shall be made within 60 days from the date of order or decision to the Government, if the order or decision was made by the Registrar; and to the Registrar, in other case. As per sub- section (2), the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall pass such orders on such appeal as he may think fit.
6. In [PRECEDENT] the Apex Court reiterated that, non-entertainment of a writ petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under [SECTION] [CASE NUMBER] :-4-:
of the [ACT], despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under [SECTION].
7. In [PRECEDENT], a Full Bench of this Court held that, whenever an adverse order is passed against a person, unless the same is challenged before the appropriate forum, within the prescribed time limit, the said order will become final.
8. If the petitioners are feeling aggrieved by Ext.P6 order of surcharge, their remedy is to challenge the same by invoking the statutory remedy provided under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra and also considering the fact that a statutory [CASE NUMBER] :-5-:
remedy is provided under [SECTION] of the [ACT] against Ext.P6 order of surcharge, this writ petition filed on 12.07.2018 is dismissed as not maintainable.
[ENTITY] JUDGE bpr TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE