IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23611 of 2009(V)
1. GOPINATHAN.C.D,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGER
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT RELIEF
3. THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.KURIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :09/10/2009
O R D E R
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/