IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 28447 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SHAJHAN,S/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA, PRESIDENT, MOTHER INDIA INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY, KEEZHATTINGAL,KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VENKETARAMAN,PRINCIPAL,MOTHER INDIA INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY, KEEZHATTINGAL,KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.S.VIJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, KEEZHATTINGAL BRANCH , KEEZHATTINGAL, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 101. *ADDL.R2. SMT.SREELATHA, W/O.SUDHIN, PADIPPHRAYIL HOUSE, KEEZHATTINGAL, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *(ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28/09/2010 IN I.A.NO.12890/2010) ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK FOR R1 SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.28447 of 2010 (E) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T First petitioner claims to the President and the 2nd petitioner claims to be the Principal of the Mother India International Residential Public School Society and the Mother India International Public School respectively. 2. According to them, in their capacity as the President and the Principal, they were operating the accounts of the Society and the School in the 1st respondent Bank. It is stated that while so, the 1st respondent Bank issued Ext.P3 notice informing that acting upon a complaint made by the additional 2nd respondent, further transactions will not be allowed. It was thereupon that the writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 and seeking a direction to the respondent Bank to lift freezing of the accounts and to permit the petitioners to operate the same. 3. From the counter affidavit filed by the additional 2nd respondent, the facts that are disclosed are that, though from 2009, WP(C) No.28447/2010 -2- the 1st petitioner was the President of the Society, for various reasons stated in the counter affidavit, which are not relevant for the purpose of this writ petition, the Society in its General Body meeting held on 01/08/2010 passed Ext.R2(a) resolution electing one Mr.Suresh Kumar as the President of the Society and the Additional 2nd respondent as its Secretary. It is stated that on election of the new office bearers, the same was communicated to the Registrar of the Societies as well. According to the respondent, thereafter they issued Ext.R2(b) letter to the Bank intimating the change of office bearers and also making various allegations against the petitioners. It is stated that it was thereupon that the Bank issued Ext.P3, preventing the petitioners from further operation of the accounts. It is also the case of the additional 2nd respondent that since the election as per Ext.R2(a), they have already opened a new account and are operating the same. 4. Although it is the case of the petitioners that the election of new office bearers as per Ext.R2(a) is illegal for various reasons, in my view, the petitioners can seek an order from this Court requiring the Bank to permit them to operate the Bank accounts, WP(C) No.28447/2010 -3- only if the petitioners successfully challenge Ext.R2(a) resolution of the Society before an appropriate Civil Court. So long as Ext.R2(a) resolution electing new office bearers of the Society remains unchallenged, the petitioners cannot aspire to operate the Bank accounts in their official capacity as the President of the Society and the Principal of the School. As at present, the petitioners have not challenged Ext.R2(a). Therefore, this Court will not be justified in requiring the Bank to permit the 1st petitioner to operate the Bank accounts for the reason that, according to the respondents, he is not the President of the Society. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedies against Ext.R2(a) resolution and also against the 1st respondent before appropriate Civil Court, this writ petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg