IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 781 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.9417/2009 Dated 24/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ SUNIL KUMAR, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AVANISSERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE OLLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.279, OLLUR, REP. BY THE SECRETARY. 2. ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETES (GENERAL), SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, SAHAKARANA NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 781 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated 31st March, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He availed a loan from the 1st respondent Co-operative Bank, by mortgaging a property owned by him in Survey No.236/5 of Avanissery Village. The mortgage was created by depositing the title deeds of the property, which had an extent of 13.5 cents. The appellant submits, he has closed the loan account. But, the 1st respondent is not returning the title deeds. So, the appellant claims, he filed a representation before the 2nd respondent Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies on 20.3.2009, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to return the documents deposited with the 1st respondent by the petitioner in Loan No.4477. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to direct the 1st WA 781/2009 2 respondent to return the documents deposited with the 1st respondent by the petitioner in Loan No.4477.” The learned Single Judge, who heard the Writ Petition, dismissed the same, relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in John v. Liquidator [2006(1) K.L.T. 11 (FB)]. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the facts of the case decided by the Full Bench, which can be distinguished from the facts of this case, the Full Bench has not laid down any absolute proposition that no direction could be issued to the Co-operative Society in this matter. We notice that the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition without prejudice to the alternative remedies available to the appellant under the Co-operative Societies Act. When the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of alternative remedy, an appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act against that judgment is not maintainable, unless it is shown that the exercise of the discretion made by the learned Single Judge was perverse. We find it difficult to hold that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is perverse. We notice that the appellant has claimed to have filed the representation only on 20.3.2009 and the Writ Petition has been filed by him on 22.3.2009. So, even without WA 781/2009 3 waiting for a week for the statutory authority to look into his grievance, the appellant has rushed to this Court. The appellant made submissions on the urgency of the matter. Every writ petitioner will have some urgency in his matter. Otherwise, he will not come to this Court for reliefs. But, this Court cannot afford to entertain such writ petitions, when alternative remedies are available to the petitioners concerned to redress their grievance. This Court's time and resources should be preserved for dealing with matters, which this Court alone can handle. So, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal, even if the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the case decided by the Full Bench. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Needless to say, if Ext.P4 is received and pending, the 2nd respondent shall endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. nm/