IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 W.A.No. 336 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C)19119/2007 Dated 01/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT / PETITIONER THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS 1. P.S.MOHANAN NAIR, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, CHILANKA HOUSE, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ELAMGULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3576, KOORALI P.O., PIN 686 522, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 3. A.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREESYLAM, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. 4. K.J.VIJAYAMMA, SREESYLAM, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. 5. VIJAYAMOHAN, SREESYLAM, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. 6. SURESHKUMAR, SREESYLAM, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. W.A.No. 336 of 2008 :: 2 :: 7. THE SECRETARY, ELAMGULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOORALI. 8. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R1 ADV.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R2 SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.G.ANEETHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.336 OF2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.BASHEER, J. This writ appeal unravels quite a strange and mysterious conduct on the part of a District Co-operative Bank which, in our view, has resulted in totally avoidable harassment and inconvenience to a depositor in a member Co-operative Bank. 2. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed. 3. Respondent No.1 herein had admittedly made a fixed deposit of Rs.80,000/- in Elamgulam Service Co-operative Bank Limited at Koorali on November 18, 1996. He had yet again made a further deposit of Rs.40,00,000/- in the said Bank on March 29, 1997. Thus it is beyond controversy that respondent No.2 Bank had accepted a total sum of Rs.40,80,000/- from respondent No.1 as fixed deposit. 4. To make a long story short, respondent No.1 was constrained to approach the Arbitrator under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 when the Bank refused to release the deposit to him allegedly under one pretext or the other. Anyhow, respondent No.1 had ultimately obtained an award against respondent No.2 Bank directing it to return the said amount of Rs.40,80,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 14.5% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realisation. Ext.P9 is the true copy of the award passed in favour of respondent No.1 by the State Co-operative Tribunal, Trivandrum. W.A.No.336 OF2008 :: 2 :: 5. The appellant which is stated to be a District Co-operative Bank had stepped into the scene at that stage. Appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the award passed by the Co-operative Tribunal in favour of respondent No.1 and praying interalia for a declaration that respondent No.2 Bank was not liable to pay any amount to respondent No.1 and also to interdict respondent No.2 from releasing the money to respondent No.1. The said writ petition which came up for consideration along with another writ petition filed by a member of the Managing Committee of respondent No.2 Bank was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. It is thus that the appellant is before us in this writ appeal. 6. At the very outset, it has to be noticed that there was no privity of contract or banker - depositor relationship between the appellant and respondent No.1. Admittedly, respondent No.1 had made two fixed deposits totalling to Rs.40,80,000/- with respondent No.2 Bank. Curiously, respondent No.2 Bank is not before us questioning the award passed by the Co-operative Tribunal in favour of respondent No.1. On the contrary, it is on record that by Ext.P10 communication dated, June 18, 2007 the administrator of respondent No.2 Bank had in fact directed the Secretary of the Bank to release the fixed deposit to respondent No.1 with interest thereon as directed by the Co-operative Tribunal. 7. But, still the appellant had some other ideas and it was thus that the award was challenged in the writ petition and still further, not being satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal. W.A.No.336 OF2008 :: 3 :: 8. It has to be noticed at once that the stand taken by respondent No.2 initially was that the major portion of the amount deposited by respondent No.1 had been adjusted towards some loan accounts maintained by respondents 3 to 6. Yet another contention was that the balance sum of Rs.13,20,747/- had later been adjusted towards the cash credit account maintained by respondent No.1 himself. All these contentions were elaborately considered by the Arbitrator and the Co-operative Tribunal and repelled. The learned Single Judge had taken great pains to go through the entire materials on record. The learned Judge held that the findings of fact entered by the Tribunal did not call for any interference. Therefore, we do not propose to take the trouble of reconsidering the questions of fact decided by the appellate Tribunal which in turn have been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 9. More importantly, in our view, the appeal can be decided on the short ground of locus standi of the appellant to challenge the award under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. As mentioned earlier, respondent No.1 had made the fixed deposits before respondent No.2 Bank. An award was passed in favour of respondent No.1 by the competent statutory authority, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The said award has not been challenged by respondent No.2 so far. 10. But the appellant who claims that some amounts are due to it from respondent No.2 Bank has chosen to prosecute the writ petition and the writ appeal on the specious plea that respondent No.2 Bank had not been diligent enough in W.A.No.336 OF2008 :: 4 :: prosecuting the case and, therefore, if the decree amount is paid to respondent No.1, the appellant would ultimately stand to lose. We are unable to agree with the above contentions. 11. In our view, the appellant has no locus standi to challenge the award passed against respondent No.2 and in favour of respondent No.1. As mentioned by us earlier, there was no relationship of banker - depositor between the appellant and respondent No.1. If at all the appellant is entitled to recover any amount from respondent No.2 to which huge sums had been allegedly advanced to tide over some financial crisis, necessarily the appellant has to proceed against respondent No.2 and recover the same in accordance with law. The appellant, in our view, is not entitled to challenge the award passed by the statutory authority against respondent No.2. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant. Writ appeal is dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes