IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 23611 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOPINATHAN.C.D, CHOORANOLIL HOUSE, KUZHITHOLU PO,VANDANMEDU,IDUKKI BY ADV. SRI.K.M.KURIAN SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI. 2. KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT' GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 23611/2009. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL ORDER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF PAYMENT VOUCHER. EXT.P3(a) TRUE COPY OR REPRESENTATION DT. 304-2009. EXT.P3(b) REPRESENTATION DT. 30-4-2009. EXT.P3(c) REPRESENTATION DT. 30-4-2009. EXT.P4 PETITION DT. 30-4-2009. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 23611 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a borrower of loan amounts from the 1st respondent-bank. He defaulted repayment of the same. The 1st respondent demanded the outstanding amounts. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent-Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission. The Commission passed an order giving certain remissions as per the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Act, 2006 and directed the petitioner to pay the balance. The petitioner paid the balance. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that despite settling the loan account as per the order of the Commission the title deeds which have been deposited by the petitioner as security for repayment of the loan amount are not being returned by the 1st respondent. 2. Originally, the 1st respondent contended that although the petitioner had remitted the amounts after deducting the amount of deduction granted by Ext. P1 order of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent can close the account only after the 3rd respondent pays the remission amount to the 1st respondent as per the Act. I directed to the learned Government Pleader to get instructions on the question of payment of amount to the 1st respondent. The learned Government Pleader submits that amount has been sanctioned and has been entrusted with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Registrar will disburse the amount to the 1st respondent on the 1st respondent submitting the details with proof. 3. When this Court opined that if the 1st respondent has any dispute with the Government, it is for him to take up the matter with the Government and for that the petitioner cannot be asked to wait, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent took the contention that no writ petition would lie for return of title deeds of the property W.P.C. No. 23611/09 -: 2 :- mortgaged by the borrower to obtain loan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in John v. Liquidator, 2006(1) KLT 11 (F.B). 4. I have considered that decision. Of course, in that decision, it is stated that a writ petition seeking a direction to a Co-operative Society to return the title deeds of the property mortgaged by the petitioner to obtain housing loan is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, but that very decision also says that a writ will lie against a Co-operative Society when the duty owned by the Co- operative Society is of a public nature and when there is infringement of any statutory rules by such a co-operative society. The relief the petitioner now seeks is based on an order passed under the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Act, 2006. Under Section 5(b) and (d) of the Said Act, it is stipulated thus: “5. Powers and Functions of the Commission: xx xx xx (b) to fix, in the case of creditors other than institutional creditors, a fair rate of interest and an appropriate level of debt, to be payable as the Commission may consider just and reasonable by a farmer declared as distress affected or related to an area or crop declared as distress affected area or distress affected crop as per Section 6 as the case may be; xx xx xx (d) to adjudicate disputes between farmers described in clause (b) and creditors, other than institutional creditors, and to pass awards which shall be binding on both parties: Provided that before passing an award as per this clause a creditor shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” Therefore, the 1st respondent-bank has a statutory duty to comply with the order passed by the Commission under that Act which is a W.P.C. No. 23611/09 -: 3 :- statutory duty. For enforcing that statutory duty, a writ petition would be maintainable. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has obtained an order from the Commission and the petitioner has paid all amounts due pursuant to the order of the Commission, the petitioner is entitled to return of the security documents for return of which, the 1st respondent has a statutory duty. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The 1st respondent is directed to return the security documents submitted by the petitioner as security for the due repayment of the loan amounts, which have been repaid as per the orders of the Commission forthwith. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/