IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5333 of 2009(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- POOVARANY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2882,POOVARANY P.O.KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD KOCHI,REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPRATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI FOR R1 SMT.SMITHA GEORGE FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.5333 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. In this writ petition they say that they had deposited an amount of Rs.10 lakhs with the first respondent. Initially, the deposit was made on 3.7.2002 for a period of 3 years and on its maturity the deposit was renewed for another 3 years. Ext.P1 is the fixed deposit receipt issued by the first respondent at the time of initial deposit. 2. On the expiry of the period of fixed deposit as extended, petitioner passed Ext.P2 resolution to withdraw the fixed deposit. Subsequently, Ext.P3 letter was issued calling upon the first respondent to refund the deposit amount with interest. According to the petitioner, although initially, it was promised to repay the amount deposited, in spite of several reminders amount was not repaid. Therefore the writ petition is filed for appropriate reliefs. WP(c).No.5333/09 2 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. The technical contention raised before me is to the effect that the remedy available to the petitioner is to raise a dispute under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It is also averred in paragraph 4 of the affidavit that, initially the deposit was made on 3.7.2002 for a period of 3 years and it was extended for a further period of 3 years with the understanding that deposit will be renewed for subsequent years also. However, nothing has been produced along with the counter affidavit filed to substantiate that there was any understanding to renew the fixed deposit on its expiry of the extended period of deposit. To a specific querry, counsel for the 1st respondent also could not confirm whether the respondent is in possession of any document, in support of the statement in the counter affidavit. Therefore, this averment has been made only to make it appear that there is a factual dispute between the parties requiring to be resolved in a proceedings under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act and the endeavor is to get the writ petition dismissed on WP(c).No.5333/09 3 that basis. 4. I am satisfied that the period of deposit having expired, petitioner is entitled to be refunded the amount due and the decision of the 1st respondent refusing to release the amount is absolutely arbitrary. One of the plea raised in the counter affidavit is that the respondent is not an authority amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. What is sought for is a writ of mandamus and hence, even if the 1st respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, since it is discharging public duties, relief sought for can be granted Therefore, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing that the first respondent shall repay the amount due to the petitioner under Ext.P1 along with interest. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment . (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/