IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15925 of 2007(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- THE KANAYANNUR CO-OPERTIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.E 326, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SMT. INDIRA, W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, KANHIRATHINKAL HOUSE, MOOLEPPADAM NAGAR, KALAMASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN - R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV.T.PRABHAKARAN - R2 SRI.M.K.SHASHI KUMAR - R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.15925/2007 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GEHAN DTD. 19/06/1995 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH HER ISSUES. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGISTERED AT THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DTD. 10/12/1998. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DTD. 23/12/2000 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF K.R.RAJASREE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DTD. 12/10/2000 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRB/1459/2005 DTD. 27/04/2005 OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD. 28/07/2005 PREFERRED BYTHE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO.10603/B1/05/CO-OP. DTD. 2/03/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT ON 28/03/2007. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.315/07/CO-OP. DTD.2/05/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 15/05/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH HER DAUGHTER TO THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5790/2004 OF THE ERNAKULAM SUB REGISTRY DTD. 4/10/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.15925 of 2007-U ================================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner, a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank covered by the provisions of the Kerala State Co- operative (Agricultural and Rural Development Banks) Act, 1984, invoked the provisions of that Act and bid an item of property on 27-5-1999. That sale was confirmed on 13-1-2000. Though the proceedings were taken under that Act, on 9-3- 2005, the second respondent, whose property was sold, moved the Joint Registrar invoking the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 seeking a direction to the bank to settle the loan account under one time settlement scheme and to re-convey the property. That was rejected by the Joint Registrar on 27-4-2005. The WPC15925/2007 -:2:- second respondent carried an appeal on 28-7-2005 to the Government against that decision and after hearing the parties, the Government allowed the appeal in May, 2007 as per the impugned Ext.P9 order. 2.A survey of the provisions of the KSCARD Act and the KCS Act will show that neither the Joint Registrar nor the Government had any power to interfere with the sale that had concluded way back in 2000. There was total lack of jurisdiction. Not only that, there was no factual foundation for the interference. This is apparent even from the impugned Ext.P9 order where the Government does not find any illegality in the proceedings but ultimately says that the order is being made on humanitarian ground. Compassion with no legal foundation cannot be enforced through statutory proceedings under a secular, democratic republican Constitution. That will impinge on the Rule of Law. Not only that, if at WPC15925/2007 -:3:- all there could be any compassion, the Government could not substitute its view regarding compassion, in the case in hand, for any compassion that the petitioner society would have shown, had it been moved by the second respondent properly. I, therefore, find that the impugned Ext.P9 is illegal and arbitrary. In the result, Ext.P9 is quashed and it is directed that any request of the second respondent for re-conveyance of the property in question, including by extending any ameliorative benefits, will be considered in accordance with the decision of the petitioner in its wisdom provided the second respondent makes such a request within an outer limit of one month from now. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl. WPC15925/2007 -:4:-