IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 20660 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MURUKKUMPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.T 292,MURUKKUMPUZHA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI. T.R. HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 4. MR.ANDREW A LOPEZ, JANI VILLA, MURUKKUMPUZHA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 302. 5. MR. K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, MANGALASERY, CHILAMBIL P.O, SASTHAVATTOM,PERUMKUZHI, AZHOOR- 695 305. 6. VIJAYAMMA, RAGHAVA NIVAS, EDAVILAKAM, MURUKKUMPUZHA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 302. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF, R4 BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SRI.V.VIJULAL, R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20660/2010-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.1323/2006 DTD. 15/02/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.20189/2006 DTD. 12/03/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.8329/2008 DTD. 12/03/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.32084/2007 DTD. 01/02/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LIST OF CASES PENDING BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA AND THE AMOUNTS DUE TO THE COMPLAINANTS IN THE SAID CASES. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. IN COMPLAINT NO.1165/2007 DTD. 22/01/08. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. IN COMPLAINT NO. 1165/2007 DTD. 10/03/2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. IN COMPLAINT NO.810/2008 DTD. 12/08/2009. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. IN COMPLAINT NO.810/2008 DTD. 27/05/2009. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 25/02/2010. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. IN COMPLAINT NO.171/2008 DTD. 10/02/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 20660 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner bank which is a primary agricultural credit society registered under the provision of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash Exts. P6 to P9 and P11 and to declare that in the light of the observations contained in Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, the 1st respondent is not justified in directing re- payment of amount due to the depositors who have filed complaints before the 1st respondent. Earlier, the petitioner bank received deposits from its members for a specified period assuring attractive interest. However, mismanagement of the previous committee in office put the bank in complete doldrums and realizing the same the depositors demanded for re-payment of amount deposited with the bank. Some of them approached the Kerala Lok Ayukta with prayers to direct the bank to disburse the amounts available with it. In some of the cases, the first respondent passed orders directing re-payment of the maturity value of the deposits. Certain final orders passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta on some such complaints WPC.20660/2010 : 2 : were subject matter of a writ petition before this Court in W.P (C) No. 1323/2006. This Court after considering the rival contentions disposed of the same as per Ext.P1 judgment. Referring to Ext.P1 judgment it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mode of disbursement of deposits accepted by the bank has been concluded by Ext.P1 judgment and that it has attained finality. This position has not been disputed by the respondents. Therefore, it is common case that how the amount deposited by various depositors with the petitioner bank should be disbursed has already been decided by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment and what remains is only its implementation in terms of Ext.P1 judgment. In the meanwhile, certain other depositors have approached the Kerala Lok Ayukta. Exts.P6 to P9 and P11 are the interim orders passed in the complaints preferred by them. Later, for non- compliance with the orders in Exts.P6 to P9 and P11, notices such as Ext.P10 have been issued by the first respondent. It was in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-bank mainly contending that Exts.P6 to P9 and P11 orders should not have been passed by the first respondent in the light of Exts.P1 to P4 judgments especially taking into account the specific directions in Ext.P1 judgment. WPC.20660/2010 : 3 : In other words according to the petitioner in the light of Ext.P1 judgment the petitioner is bound to distribute the available funds among the depositors on a pro rata basis. 2. The observations made by this Court in Ext.P1 is relevant to refer in the context of the contentions and they read thus:- “It is impossible to pay the amounts to all the depositors, having regard to the financial position of the Bank. Therefore, an authority like Lok Ayukta, I feel, should take into account the totality o circumstances before passing orders in the nature of Ext.P7. It should have collected data regarding the funds available with the Bank and also list of claimants standing in the queue, claiming a share in the amount available for disbursement. But, in this case, the approach made by the Lok Ayukta is mechanical. The same will defeat the rights of similarly placed persons, who are eagerly waiting, at least, to get a portion of the amount deposited by them. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The matter is remitted to the Lok Ayukta. It shall pass fresh orders, after hearing both sides and taking into account all relevant matters, including the observations made herein above, as expeditiously, as possible.” It was after making such observations as extracted above that the said writ petition was allowed and after quashing the impugned orders the matter was remitted to the Lok Ayukta. It is pending consideration. In such circumstances, the first respondent ought to have given due regard to the directions given in Ext.P1 before passing orders like Exts.P6 to P9 and P11. WPC.20660/2010 : 4 : 3. As already noticed hereinbefore in Ext.P1 judgment this Court observed that before passing orders on complaints touching the aforesaid issue, the Lok Ayukta ought to have collected data regarding the funds available with the bank and also the list of claimants standing in the queue claiming the share in the amount available for disbursement. As per Ext.P1 judgment it was directed to pass fresh orders after hearing both sides and taking into account all relevant matters, including the above observations made above. Therefore, due regard should have been given to the said observations made in Ext.P1 before passing orders on matters which were remanded for fresh consideration and also on complaints preferred by other depositors which are pending as on the date of Ext.P1 judgment or filed subsequent to it claiming disbursement of the deposited amount with the petitioner bank from the available funds. In the light of Ext.P1, before passing orders on any such complaints on the aforesaid matter the Lok Ayukta ought to have collected data regarding the funds available with the bank and also the list of claimants standing in queue and claiming a share in the amount available for disbursement. After collecting such particulars the first respondent ought to have decided as to how the amount could be disbursed among the depositors on WPC.20660/2010 : 5 : a pro rata basis. Of course, while doing so, persons whose deposits have matured could have been given preference. A scanning of the orders impugned in this writ petition viz., Exts.P6 to P9 and P11 orders in the light of specific observation extracted above from Ext.P1 would show that such an endeavour has not been made by the first respondent while passing such orders. Therefore, I am of the considered view that Exts.P6 to P9 and P11 call for interference. To enable the first respondent to pass orders on the complaints that led to the issuance of orders viz., Exts.P6 to P9 and P11, afresh with due regard to the observations and directions made in Ext.P1 judgment Exts.P6 to P9 and P11 orders are set aside. 4. Admittedly, the complaints that led to the impugned orders are still pending before the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent shall pass fresh orders on the complaints preferred by the respondents 4 to 6 that led to Exts.P6 to P9 and P11 orders, after hearing both sides and after calling for the data regarding the availability of the funds with the petitioner-bank and also the list of claimants standing in the queue and claiming for their share in the amount available for disbursement as observed and directed by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. In that regard it will be open to the first respondent WPC.20660/2010 : 6 : to fix the time limit within which the petitioner - bank should furnish such details with respect to the availability of funds and also the list of depositors who are waiting in the queue claiming their respective share in the amount available for disbursement. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the petitioner is likely to raise the plea of non availability of funds. I do not think that this Court should issue any direction on that aspect in this writ petition in the light of Ext.P2 judgment. As per Ext.P2 judgment the 2nd respondent herein was directed to expedite the disposal of the E.P. cases and the ARC matters pending before the Arbitrator, essentially, in respect of the petitioner - bank and also the realization of the agricultural and non-agricultural loan in the fastest manner so that bank would get the amount due to it and could make it available for disbursement. If any such matters which were directed to be disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment are still pending the 2nd respondent shall file a report as to the reasons for the delay in the matter of disposal of such cases, before this Court within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It will also be open to the first respondent on receiving such details directed to be collected as per Ext.P1 judgment, especially, with respect to the availability of funds WPC.20660/2010 : 7 : with the petitioner-bank to call for such other details to look into the aspects whether the statement with respect to the availability of funds made by the petitioner-bank are true to the records kept with the bank. It is made clear that after collecting all such details, it will be open to the first respondent to decide as to how the amounts should be disbursed among the depositors on a pro rata basis, taking into account the directions in Ext.P1. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //True copy// P.A to Judge