IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 781 of 2009()
1. SUNIL KUMAR, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE OLLUR SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.,
... Respondent
2. ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETES
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :31/03/2009
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 781 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated 31st March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioner is the appellant. He availed a loan from the 1st
respondent Co-operative Bank, by mortgaging a property owned by him in
Survey No.236/5 of Avanissery Village. The mortgage was created by
depositing the title deeds of the property, which had an extent of 13.5 cents.
The appellant submits, he has closed the loan account. But, the 1st
respondent is not returning the title deeds. So, the appellant claims, he
filed a representation before the 2nd respondent Assistant Registrar of Co-
operative Societies on 20.3.2009, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4.
Thereafter, the Writ Petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to return the
documents deposited with the 1st respondent by the petitioner in
Loan No.4477.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to direct the 1stWA 781/2009 2
respondent to return the documents deposited with the 1st
respondent by the petitioner in Loan No.4477.”
The learned Single Judge, who heard the Writ Petition, dismissed the same,
relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in John v. Liquidator
[2006(1) K.L.T. 11 (FB)]. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal is
filed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the
facts of the case decided by the Full Bench, which can be distinguished
from the facts of this case, the Full Bench has not laid down any absolute
proposition that no direction could be issued to the Co-operative Society in
this matter. We notice that the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition
without prejudice to the alternative remedies available to the appellant
under the Co-operative Societies Act. When the learned Single Judge
dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of alternative remedy, an appeal
under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act against that judgment is not
maintainable, unless it is shown that the exercise of the discretion made by
the learned Single Judge was perverse. We find it difficult to hold that the
view taken by the learned Single Judge is perverse. We notice that the
appellant has claimed to have filed the representation only on 20.3.2009 and
the Writ Petition has been filed by him on 22.3.2009. So, even without
WA 781/2009 3
waiting for a week for the statutory authority to look into his grievance, the
appellant has rushed to this Court. The appellant made submissions on the
urgency of the matter. Every writ petitioner will have some urgency in his
matter. Otherwise, he will not come to this Court for reliefs. But, this Court
cannot afford to entertain such writ petitions, when alternative remedies are
available to the petitioners concerned to redress their grievance. This
Court’s time and resources should be preserved for dealing with matters,
which this Court alone can handle. So, we find no reason to interfere with
the judgment under appeal, even if the facts of this case are distinguishable
from the facts of the case decided by the Full Bench. Accordingly, the Writ
Appeal is dismissed. Needless to say, if Ext.P4 is received and pending, the
2nd respondent shall endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as
possible.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.
nm/