IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7815 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. K.K.JOSEPH, KARINGOTTUMATTATHIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ALEYAMMA JOSEPH, KARINGOTTUMATTATHIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 686564 2. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER ETTUMANOOR SCB GROUP, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KOTTAYAM. 686564 3. THE AYARKUNNAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.4147 ,AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. 686564 4. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KOTTAYAM - 686564 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.' BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. BY SC, SRI. T.A. SHAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kp P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7815 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners, who are husband and wife, had availed two different loans from the third respondent bank. The loans were availed in February, 2007. When the loan was not repaid in time, the bank filed ARC Nos.3968 of 2011 & 3969 of 2010 under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 before the Arbitrator. Exts.P6 and P7 are copies of the said arbitration cases. The Arbitrator thereupon issued summons to the petitioners to appear on 16.2.2011. The petitioners thereupon filed Exts.P8 and P9 representations before the Arbitrator requesting that till their request for debt waiver under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme is considered and disposed of, the arbitration cases may not be proceeded with. This writ petition was thereafter filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to allow the claims of the petitioners for waiver of their debts under Exhibit P3 Agricultural debt relief scheme, which is already sanctioned by the Grievance Redressal Officer as per Exhibit P4. (ii) To direct th second respondent to keep in abeyance all further steps pursuant to Exhibits p6 and P7 summons WPC No.7815/2011 2 in view of the fact that the final authority under Exhibit P3 scheme namely Grievance Redressal officer has allowed the claim of the petitioners for waiver of debts under the agricultural debt relief scheme. (iii) To quash Exhibits P6 and P7.” 2. In my opinion, the writ petition is without any merit. If the petitioners are entitled to any benefit under Ext.P3 scheme, they ought to bring it to the notice of the third respondent bank. The second respondent, the Arbitrator appointed by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies cannot take a decision on Exts.P8 and P9 representation de hors the arbitration case. The Arbitrator can only take note of the defence raised by the petitioners. At best, the petitioners can only contend before the Arbitrator that they were entitled to certain benefits under Ext.P3 scheme. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.7815/2011 3 WPC No.7815/2011 4