Kerala High Court
The Mutholy Service Co-Op:Bank Ltd vs The Secretary To Government on 1 October, 2009
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17793 of 2009(T)
1. THE MUTHOLY SERVICE CO-OP:BANK LTD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :01/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------
WP(C) No.17793 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated, this the 1st day of October, 2009
------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank incorporated under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
2. Ext.P1 is the circular issued by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies, informing Primary Co-operative Societies like the petitioner that considering the 3rd respondent's urgent requirement of funds, the Societies were permitted under Section 57 of the Act to make deposits with the 3rd respondent. The said circular was followed by Ext.P2, another communication issued by the Registrar addressed to the Joint Registrars requesting them to advise the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, to deposit their surplus fund with the 3rd respondent subject to certain other conditions.
3. It is stated that in pursuance to Exts.P1 & P2, the petitioner made various Fixed Deposits with the 3rd respondent, the total sum of which is Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five crores only). WP(C) No.17793/2009 -2- Ext.P3 is a consolidated statement giving details of date of deposits, number, amount, date of maturity and interest accrued thereon. The petitioner states that several of the deposits attained maturity, and as they were embarking upon the execution of certain new projects, they wanted to raise resources for meeting the project cost. With that idea, they passed Ext.P4 resolution authorising the Secretary to request the 3rd respondent to release the matured deposits. Accordingly, Ext.P5 letter was issued by the Secretary of the Bank on 06/02/2009 requesting the 3rd respondent to release the matured deposits.
4. On its receipt the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P7 reply dated 26/02/2009, where it inter alia states that they are awaiting financial assistance from the Government/NCDC, and that as and when the financial assistance is received, the deposits will be released. On this basis, the petitioner was requested to await for some more time. Again, Ext.P8 request was made by the petitioner, requiring the 3rd respondent to release, if not the principal, at least the interest that had fallen overdue. This was followed by Ext.P9 notice issued on behalf of the petitioner Bank, which was replied by Ext.P10 informing that the interest accrued will be paid at the WP(C) No.17793/2009 -3- appropriate time. Although, Ext.P11 notice was again issued and Ext.P12 request was made to the Joint Registrar requesting to directing the 3rd respondent to release the matured deposits and overdue interest, no favorable action was forthcoming, and therefore, this writ petition was filed praying that the 3rd respondent be directed to release the matured deposits and also the overdue interest.
5. When the writ petition came up for admission before this Court, by order dated 26/06/2009 notice was ordered by speed post. On receipt of notice from this Court, the Bank has filed a counter affidavit, where although, they have accepted the case of the petitioner of having made deposits and the amount mentioned in Ext.P3 statement, according to them, it was after the renewal of the deposits that the petitioner approached this Court for releasing the amounts pretending ignorance of renewal of the deposits. It is stated that since the deposits have been renewed and the same has been communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to get the amount in deposit released. It is also contended that there is no obligation to release the deposits before it attains maturity, and that on the arrival of the maturity date, the money will WP(C) No.17793/2009 -4- be disbursed with interest.
6. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner producing Ext.P14 series fixed deposit receipts, by which, the deposits have been renewed. It is stated that unlike the normal practice, in this case, the petitioner did not make any request for renewal of the deposits. It is stated that after receiving the notice from this Court, the Bank has unilaterally renewed the deposits only with the malafide motive to defeat the claim of the petitioner. Further, it is also pointed out from Ext.P14 series of receipts that, that receipts renewing the deposits of the petitioner were forwarded by the 3rd respondent under cover of its letter dated 13/07/2009 and that even going by the due dates shown in many of the deposits, such renewed deposits have also become mature for release.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has deposited Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five crores only), which attained maturity on the dates indicated in Ext.P3 statement attached to the writ petition. The only question is whether because the deposits have been renewed, the petitioner has become disentitled to get the amount released. In my view, the facts of this WP(C) No.17793/2009 -5- writ petition show a motivated conduct on the part of the 3rd respondent, in as much as it has unilaterally renewed the deposits made by the petitioner, without even asking for a request from the petitioner in that behalf. Such unilateral renewal was intended only to defeat the claim of the petitioner to get release of the fixed deposits. Therefore, such deplorable conduct on the part of the 3rd respondent cannot be taken advantage to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner for getting the amount released to it. Therefore, the petitioner should be entitled to get all matured deposits released along with overdue interest.
8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that they are in urgent requirement of only Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees one crore ten lakhs only) for meeting the cost of an expansion project undertaken by them. Therefore, as at present, the petitioner will be satisfied, if Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees one crore ten lakhs only) is released. This the 3rd respondent cannot deny.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:-
That within three weeks from today, the 3rd respondent shall release WP(C) No.17793/2009 -6- an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakhs only) to the petitioner. The balance Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakhs only) shall be released within three weeks thereafter. For release of any further amount due, it will be open to the petitioner to make a request in that behalf, in which event, the 3rd respondent shall deal with the same in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg