High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2018-07-30Writ appeal allowed; impugned judgment set asid...

Anapanthy Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd. v. P.K. Thomas & Others

Case / Petition Number:WA.No. 1280 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. Chitambaresh
Sathish Ninan
Judgment Date: 2018-07-30
Court Decision / Holding: Writ appeal allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the delinquent is not foreclosed from pursuing other appropriate forums (Co‑operative Arbitration Court or Labour Court). No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; WP(C) dismissed as not maintainable; no costs; delinquent may pursue other appropriate fora.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anapanthy Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd., No F 1516, Angadikadavu P.O., Kannur District (represented by its President)

Respondents

P.K. Thomas
The Joint Registrar (General), Co‑operative Societies, Kannur
The Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Kerala
The Chairman, Sub Committee (Disciplinary), Anapanthy Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd.
K.A. Jaison
V. T. Joseph
Benny U.P. @ John

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. M. Ramesh Chander (Sr.)
• Sri. Aneesh Joseph
• Sri. John Thitheemos

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. N.D. Premachandran (for R1)
• Senior Government Pleader SMT. K.R. Deepa (for R2‑R3)
• Adv. R. Surendran (for R4‑R5)
• Adv. T.J. Seema (for R6)
• Adv. C.P. Peethambaran (for R7)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ appeal, WA No.1280 of 2016, arises from a challenge to Ext.P26 disciplinary proceedings of a Sub‑Committee of a Co‑operative Society (Anapanthy Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd.). The delinquent, P.K. Thomas, contends that natural justice was violated by not furnishing a copy of the disciplinary enquiry report and by issues around earlier Ext.P22 proceedings. The first instance court held that the Bank, a cooperative society, is not a “State” under Article 12 and that the writ petition was maintainable only on narrow grounds, noting that the Act and Rules do not require furnishing the copy of the enquiry report. The Division Bench reverses, clarifying that writ relief against a cooperative society is available only on limited grounds (breach of statutory provisions or breach of public duty). It observes that Ext.P26 was issued after interim steps and that the Court shall not re‑weigh evidence in a disciplinary matter, which is for the Co‑operative Arbitration Court or Labour Court to determine. The appellate court ultimately sets aside the impugned judgment, dismisses the writ petition as not maintainable, and allows the writ appeal, while reserving the delinquent’s right to pursue other appropriate fora. No costs are awarded.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, Rule 198(2A)Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, Rule 198(5)Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co‑operative Societies ActIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947Right to Information Act, 2005Constitution of India, Article 12

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principles of natural justice
Writ jurisdiction vs statutory remedy
Writs against cooperative societies lie only on limited grounds (breach of statutory provisions or public duty)
Co-operative societies are not ‘State’ under Article 12

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant bank contends that Ext.P26 disciplinary proceedings were challenged on grounds of violation of natural justice, citing Ext.P22 and lack of copy of the disciplinary enquiry report. It argues that the writ petition is a legitimate remedy where a quasi‑statutory authority breaches due process, and questions whether a cooperative society falls outside the writ jurisdiction unless there is breach of statutory provisions or public duty. It also notes that the society denied being a State under Article 12, and asserts the need for compliance with Rule 198(2A) and related provisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The delinquent and the respondents argue that the cooperative society is not a State within Article 12, limiting writ jurisdiction. They contend Ext.P26 was issued in a manner consistent with the Act and Rules, and that there is no statutory requirement to furnish the report; the remedy lies in statutory processes such as the Co‑operative Arbitration Court or Labour Court, not in a writ petition. The respondents rely on the precedent that writs against cooperative societies are permissible only on limited grounds (breach of statutory provisions or public duties).

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
P. Bhaskaran and others v. Additional Secretary and others	(1987) 2 KLT 903 (FB)	Positive	Cited as an authority recognizing limitations on writ jurisdiction against a cooperative society and the non‑State status under Article 12, later contextualized by Milma Officers.
John v. Liquidator	(2006) 1 KLT 11 (FB)	Mentioned Only	Noted for its discordant view relative to the Milma decision; decision not adopted as controlling.
Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala	(2015) 1 KLT 849	Positive	Higher‑bench ruling clarifying that writ petitions against cooperative societies lie only on limited grounds (breach of statutory provisions or public duty).
Thalappalam Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala	(2013) 4 KLT 232 (SC)	Positive	SC authority cited to support the position that cooperative societies are not public authorities under RTI Act; reinforces limited nature of writs against co‑ops.
K.A. Annamma v. Secretary, Cochin Co‑operative Hospital Society Ltd.	(2018) 2 SCC 729	Mentioned Only	Cited as a contemporaneous authority but not instrumental to the central holding.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Anapanthy Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd. v. P.K. Thomas & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1940 WA.No. 1280 of 2016 IN WPC.No. 25299/2011 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.4.2016 IN WP(C)No. 25299/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT)/3RD RESPONDENT IN WP(C): ANAPANTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO F 1516, ANGADIKADAVU P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SRI.JOHN THITHEEMOS RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/ RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 & 5 & IMPLEADED ADDL. RESPONDENTS 6 & 7 IN WP(C): 1. P.K.THOMAS, S/O KURIAN, POTTAMEL HOUSE, POOMANTHODE P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANNUR - 670 001. 3. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, SUB COMMITTEE (DISCIPLINARY), ANAPANTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO F 1516, ANGADIKADAVU P.O, KANNUR - 670 706. 5. K.A JAISON, EX- PRESIDENT, ANAPANTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO F 1516, ANGADIKADAVU P.O, KANNUR - 670 706. 6. V. T. JOSEPH, S/O THOMAS, 55 YEARS, VATTAMTTATHIL HOUSE, MUNDAVIRINJI, KILIYANTHARA POST - 670 706, KANNUR DISTRICT. WA1280/2016 -2- 7. BENNY U.P @ JOHN, S/O DEVASSIYA, UNNIMAKKAL, KOOMANTHODE P.O. - 670 704, KARIKOTTAKARI, KANNUR DT. R2-R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN R BY ADV. SMT. T.J.SEEMA R BY SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.7.2018, THE COURT ON 30.7.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA1280/2016 ## APPENDIX ## APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.25299/11 DATED 26.9.2011. ## RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: |ANNEXURE R1(A)|A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.30.9.2016 FILED BY THE SECRETARY| |---|---| ||AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR (LOANEE) IN E.P.NO.785 OF 2016 IN COARC| ||3938 OF 13/14.| |ANNEXURE R1(B)|A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE SECRETARY AGAINST THE| ||JUDGMENT DEBYTOR (LOANEE) IN EP NO.786 OF 2016 IN COARC 3945 OF 13/14| ||DT.30.9.2016.| |ANNEXURE R1(C)|A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.30.9.2016 FILED BY THE SECRETARY| ||AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR (LOANEE) IN EP NO.816 OF 2016 IN COARC| ||3935 OF 13/14.| |ANNEXURE R1(D)|A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE SECRETARY AGAINST THE| ||JUDGMENT DEBTOR (LOANEE) IN EP NO.824 OF 2016 IN COARC 3937 OF 13/14| ||DT. 30.9.2016.| |ANNEXURE R1(E)|A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE SECRETARY AGAINST THE| ||JUDGMENT DEBTOR (LOANEE) IN EP NO.826 OF 2016 IN COARC 3933 OF 13/14| ||DT. 30.9.2016.| |ANNEXURE R1(F)|A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE SECRETARY AGAINST THE| ||JUDGMENT DEBTOR (LOANEE) IN EP.NO.830 OF 2016 IN COARC 3940 OF 13/14.| |ANNEXURE R1(G)|A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE SECRETARY AGAINST THE| ||JUDGMENT DEBTOR (LOANEE) IN EP NO.831 OF 2016 IN COARC 3931 OF 13/14| ||DT. 30.9.2016.| |ANNEXURE R1(H)|A COPY OF THE APPLICATIONO DT.30.9.2016 FILED BY THE SECRETARY| ||AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR (LOANEE) IN EP NO.832 OF 2016 IN COARC| ||3930 OF 13/14.| |ANNEXURE R1(I)|A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 30.9.2016 FILED BY THE SECRETARY| ||AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR (LOANEE) IN EP NO.839 OF 2016 IN COARC| ||3934 OF 13/14.| |ANNEXURE R1(J)|A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE SECRETARY AGAINST THE| ||JUDGMENT DEBTOR (LOANEE) IN EP NO.845 OF 2016 IN COARC 3943 OF 13/14| ||DT.30.9.2016.| |ANNEXURE R1(K)|A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE SECRETARY AGAINST THE| ||JUDGMENT DEBTOR (LOANEE) IN EP NO.847 OF 2016 IN COARC 3942 OF 13/14| ||DT.3-0.9.2016.| -TRUE COPY- PS TO JUDGE “C.R.” ## V. CHITAMBARESH & SATHISH NINAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ## W.A.No.1280 of 2016 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30[th] day of July, 2018 ## Judgment ## Chitambaresh, J. ## “ Brevity is the soul of wit” said William Shakespeare in his play Hamlet. Hence our endeavour to write a judgment with brevity. 2. The first respondent delinquent was the Assistant Secretary of the appellant bank run by a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short). The delinquent challenged Ext.P26 proceedings of the disciplinary sub-committee constituted under Rule 198 (2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for short). Neither did the delinquent file an appeal to the managing committee under Rule 198(5) of WA1280/2016 -: 2 :- the Rules nor did he raise a dispute before the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69(2)(d) of the Act. The delinquent did not also invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [see: K.A.Annamma v. Secretary, Cochin - Co operative Hospital Society Ltd. [(2018) 2 SCC 729]. Ext.P26 proceedings of the sub-committee terminating the services of the delinquent were instead challenged in a writ petition mainly on the ground that principles of natural justice were grossly violated. The delinquent contended that the subcommittee had earlier issued Ext.P22 proceedings on same lines without even furnishing a copy of the report of the Disciplinary Enquiry Officer. 3. We find that a copy of the disciplinary enquiry report was later served on the delinquent and Ext.P24 show cause notice issued to him before the sub-committee issued Ext.P26 proceedings finally. It was so done pursuant to the interim order dated 26.09.2011 passed in the writ petition filed WA1280/2016 -: 3 :- challenging the proposed termination of the services of the delinquent by the bank. We do not see any violation of the principles of natural justice or infraction of the statutory rules when the Act or the Rules do not anywhere insist on furnishing a copy of the disciplinary enquiry report. Can the writ petition be entertained against the Co-operative Society even if there is a violation of the principles of natural justice is the question posed by the appellant bank in this writ appeal. 4. We heard Mr. M. Ramesh Chander, Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant bank, Mr. N.D. Premachandran, Advocate on behalf of the delinquent and Mrs. K.R. Deepa, Senior Government Pleader. 5. A violation of the principles of natural justice may at best enable the delinquent to skip the statutory remedy and invoke the writ jurisdiction provided the impugned order was passed by a governmental authority. Ext.P26 proceedings were issued by the sub-committee of a Co-operative Society WA1280/2016 -: 4 :- which is not a 'State' coming within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has been so held in P. Bhaskaran and others v. Additional Secretary and others [1987 (2) KLT 903(FB)] even though a discordant note was struck in John v. Liquidator [2006 (1) KLT 11(FB)]. A larger bench of this Court in Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLT 849] has clarified that a writ petition would lie against a co-operative society only on limited grounds. There should either be a breach of the statutory provisions or breach of a public duty vested in it and we find that there is no pleading or proof in that regard in this case. The Co-operative Society is not even a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [see: Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2013 (4) KLT 232 (SC)]. 6. The learned single Judge has held that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice since Ext.P22 proceedings of the sub-committee were issued without WA1280/2016 -: 5 :- serving a copy of the disciplinary enquiry report. And that Ext.P26 proceedings though issued after serving a copy (and Ext.P24 show cause notice) were without expressly cancelling Ext.P22 proceedings. The fact that Ext.P26 proceedings were issued in supersession of Ext.P22 proceedings after curing the defects if any pursuant to the interim order in the writ petition is overlooked. The principles of natural justice even if violated will not enable the delinquent to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so long as the subcommittee is not a 'State'. The learned single Judge has evaluated the evidence of the parties before the Disciplinary Enquiry Officer to come to a finding that the charges against the delinquent are not proved. We hold that it is for the Cooperative Arbitration Court or the Labour Court to do so and it is not for the writ court to test the sufficiency of evidence in the disciplinary proceedings for the first time. We set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the writ petition as not WA1280/2016 -: 6 :- maintainable however without prejudice to the right of the first respondent delinquent to move other appropriate forum. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Sd/V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE Sd/SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE Sha/260718